On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:18 PM, vishnu <path...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bulat > hmm ok I understand the issue of compiler maturity. But I thought > lazyness was meant to be a bonus? Or is it that if you really try to squeeze > performance it becomes more of a hindrance?
One of my favorite quotes by Heinrich Apfelmus, from http://apfelmus.nfshost.com/quicksearch.html Well, it's highly unlikely that algorithms get faster by introducing laziness. I mean, lazy evaluation means to evaluate only those things that are really needed and any good algorithm will be formulated in a way such that the unnecessary things have already been stripped off. But laziness allows to simplify and compose algorithms. Sometimes, seemingly different algorithms turn out to be two sides of the same coin when formulated with lazy evaluation. Isn't it great that finding the k-th minimum is not only an adaption of quicksort but can readily be obtained from it by composing it with (!! k)? Luke > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Bulat Ziganshin <bulat.zigans...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Hello Don, >> >> Friday, November 27, 2009, 11:08:44 PM, you wrote: >> >> it's just false assumption that you should got speed comparable to >> >> other languages. haskell is lazy and ghc has much less mature compiler >> >> > "comparable to other languages" eh? >> >> > That seems a little too broad to be meaningful, Bulat, as we all know. >> >> he compared to c++/java! >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Bulat mailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
