Dmitry Vyal <akam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My point is: If you need C-like performance at a certain spot there > > is really no excuse for writing the entire application in C. > > Haskell has a working, powerful enough FFI. Also idiomatic Haskell > > code nowadays performs close to C. If your code doesn't, chances are > > that it's not even idiomatic. Sorting a list is easy and beautiful > > in code. But it's far from idiomatic. Using ST with destructive > > update is also not idiomatic. One of my performance masterpieces is > > the "instinct" AI library (see Hackage). It uses only immutable > > vectors and performs very heavy Double calculations, yet performs > > better than the same code with mutable arrays did. With a few years > > of Haskell experience in my backpack I know how to utilize laziness > > to get amazing performance for code that most people would feel must > > be written with destructively updating loop. And the resulting code > > is just beautiful to read and watch at work, a great demonstration > > of the wonders the GHC developers have created. > > Out of the curios, did you compare the performance of Instinct with > implementations in languages, associated with numerical computations, > like Octave?
No, sorry. Greets, Ertugrul -- Key-ID: E5DD8D11 "Ertugrul Soeylemez <e...@ertes.de>" FPrint: BD28 3E3F BE63 BADD 4157 9134 D56A 37FA E5DD 8D11 Keysrv: hkp://subkeys.pgp.net/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
