I wanted to clear up one misconception here... On May 13, 2009, at 12:19 AM, wren ng thornton wrote:
In heavily GCed languages like Haskell allocation and collection is cheap, so we don't mind too much; but in Java and the like, both allocation and collection are expensive so the idea of cheap throwaway objects is foreign.
Not true! If you look at the internals of Clojure, you'll discover they're using trees with *very* wide fanout (eg fanout-64 leaf trees for lists). Why? Because it's so cheap to allocate and GC these structures! By using shallow-but-wide trees we reduce the cost of indexing and accessing list elements. I suspect you'd still be hard- pressed to support this kind of allocation behavior in any of the present Haskell implementations, and Haskell implementations of the same kinds of structures have limited fanout to 2-4 elements or so.
Now, if only the Clojure structures supported efficient concatenation... -Jan-Willem Maessen
-- Live well, ~wren _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
