Stefan O'Rear adds to the dialogue:
Prabhakar Ragde wrote:
Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
Just a trivial comment... 1. Don't speak about comparing *languages* when
you compare *algorithms*,
and in particular data structures.
2. Please, DO code the above in C, using linked lists. Compare then. 3.
Check the influence of bare printing, separated from the computation.
Isn't GHC clever enough to optimize away the entire computation if there is
no I/O?
Yes, but GHC is not clever enough to solve the perfect number
classification problem. 'length' will suffice, and is prefered for most
enumeratioon benchmarks.
My point didn't concern that point. Haskell compiler cannot change an
algorithm using lists into something which deals with indexable arrays,
usually faster. Indexing may be faster than the indirection, and the
allocation of memory costs. And there is laziness...
That's why I proposed to check what happens if one uses linked links in
"C". Well, the follow-ups seem to suggest that the main time eater was the
overloading. I must say that I am really astonished. It is hard to believe
that such a signature can make a factor of 8. Never seen that before.
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
