On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I'm the sort of contrary person who reads random papers like that > just for the fun of it. But when somebody says something like this, I don't > think "ooo, that's scary", I think "ooo, somebody really ought to sit down > and write a more gentle introduction". You really shouldn't *need* to know > the exact implementation details to get some idea of what will perform well > and what won't. But obviously you do need some kind of high-level > understanding of what's going on. The STG paper isn't a good way to get that > high-level overview. >
I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Reflecting on what I already know, I can optimize python pretty well and the principles are pretty similar for C. The reason I can't just port that knowledge is that with GHC I'm in the land of optimizing for cache hits and at the same time I'm at a really high level of abstraction so I have to have some mental picture of how the plumbing connects. I'm hoping that the optimization chapter of RWH covers a lot of individual techniques. I think the sum of the techniques will shed light on the compiler internals in a practical way. But then I'm not the one doing the work. -- Darrin _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe