Hello peterv, Friday, July 13, 2007, 10:00:48 PM, you wrote:
you still should select between strict algorithm which ghc can compile to non-lazy code and lazy algorithm which, as you belive, should make some other benefits :) actually, for rather large algorithms, strictness doesn't work (some parts of your code is non-strict) and you get all this orders-of-magnitude penalty. look for example at http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/afp-arrays.ps.gz or at the ByteString paper which emphasizes the same problem (and it was the reason to implementing strict ByteStrings) > Yes but doesn't GHC have a good "strictness analyzer" (or how is this > called?)? I haven't looked at the generated assembly code yet (if this is at > all readable; but good C/C++ compilers *do* generate reasonably readable > assembly code) > -----Original Message----- > From: Bulat Ziganshin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 6:43 PM > To: peterv > Cc: 'Lukas Mai'; haskell-cafe@haskell.org > Subject: Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] Newbie question about tuples > Hello peterv, > Friday, July 13, 2007, 5:03:00 PM, you wrote: >> think the latest compilers are much better). Now when implementing > something >> like this in Haskell, I would guess that its laziness would allow to >> "interleave" many of the math operations, reordering them to be as optimal >> as possible, removing many intermediate results (like processing streams). > don't forget that laziness by itself makes programs an orders of > magnitude slower :) -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
