> why you (and Donald) don't want to understand me. i > say that imperative > Haskell code is more efficient than pure (and > especially lazy) one and that > even such code in ghc is slower than C equivalent.
I think the concern about execution speed of algorithms is a fairly recent topic. At least, the reason why compilers were developped at all was to save expensive memory capacity. Imagine to pay $3500 for 2kB memory! (http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/system7/system7_tpress.html) It would pay off to invest thinking in how to make programs short in terms of memory space usage. The counting of instruction cycles in speed context came only later when personal computers became mainstream. And nowadays, they use is an interesting idea of measuring performance in multimedia: "Quality of Experience". I don't know exactly which parameters play a role, but it is interesting to relate speed to human perception. At least, speed is relative after all (with respect to the timebase we use: eons to femtoseconds). Patrick ___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe