Hello Neil, Monday, December 18, 2006, 11:04:59 PM, you wrote:
>> let's go further in this long-term discussion. i've read Shootout problems > It's more than 2 tasks that are dependant on the code generated by the > compiler. can you give me their names, please? :) > And in my opinion, generally the Clean solution was the nicest in > terms of speed/performance. There is absolutely no reason Haskell > can't be as fast as Clean. Clean doesn't seem to go to the imperative > style in most of the benchmarks. of course. i've written in Feb detailed analysis why ghc generates slower code than jhc/clean/ocaml. it's just not #1 priority and not so easy to fix > I think Bulat has a point, currently the speed of idiomatic Haskell > lags behind that of idiomatic C. But the two responses to that have to > be "currently", but not "forever". And idiomatic C is like pulling out > your own teeth with a pair of pliers - sometimes necessary, but never > fun. saying about idiomatic Haskell, it is 100-1000 times slower :) look for example at http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/afp-arrays.ps.gz -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
