Hello Thomas, Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:19:47 AM, you wrote:
> I'm not sure what you're getting at Bulat √ it's been demonstrated > that ghc is slower than gcc for most cases at the moment (many > benchmarks will back this up), *however*, it's also easily verified > that ghc has had significantly less effort directed at it than gcc and > other imperative compilers, thus, there are many places it can improve > greatly. of course. what fool will say that ghc cannot be optimized the same way as gcc? if we spent the same amount of time for improving ghc back-end as was spent for gcc (tens or hundreds man-years?), then *low-level* Haskell code will become as fast as C one, while remaining several times slower to write > In this case, you've pointed out a really great source of heavy > optimisation. Thanks a lot :) Now perhaps it might be an idea to be > constructive, rather than trying to stand like nelson going "HA HA" at > the people with the inferior compiler. ghc is superior compiler and it's my main instrument. but it can't make coffee and doesn't contain sophisticated code generator. it's why i dissuade from writing video codes in haskell and i don't like situation when someone too lazy to test speed yourself tell us tales and attack me when i say about real situation -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
