John Meacham wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 09:37:21PM -0500, Bryan Donlan wrote: > >>Or you can get the best of both worlds by using Data.ByteString.Lazy :) >>Even with laziness, all the indirections that String causes hurts >>performance. > > > actually, strictness analysis is really good at unboxing things like > this, so the indirections probably hurt less than one would initially > think.
One thing that's impressed me with the Haskell application I'm currently working on (as I am trying to bully the code into handling 10M rows of data, which must all be kept in memory at once, without keeling over) is how often adding explicit strictness annotations *hasn't* improved performance. I guess this means that GHC's strictness analysis isn't much worse than my own. (and that my algorithms are such crap that issues of laziness/strictness are the least of my problems... :-) _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
