Juergen Pfitzenmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
P> I dont't care very much how fast a program runs. I care about how
P> long it takes me to write it. If you take a programming task of
P> reasonable complexity you will finish *months* earlier using a
P> --good-- functional language instead of C++.
P>
P> Use a functional language and buy a faster computer with the saved
P> money/time.
Marcin Qrczak Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded
K> I have to care how fast my programs run. I like writing in Haskell
K> very much, it's my favorite general-purpose language, but one of the
K> biggest weak points of Haskell for me is poor efficiency (at least
K> with ghc, I don't know how fast are other compilers).
K> [..]
So far, no clear progrm example appeared in this list to demonstrate
Haskell's in-efficiency in comparison to other languages.
Do i mistake?
Thus, the recent example with the Cryptarithm solver was a very
in-correct comparison, due to the unknown permutation generating
order.
K> "Only 10 times slower than C" may be unacceptable.
Most usually, people write programs that are 1000 times slower or
faster - depending on the algorithm details, not on the language or
system.
I would say, 10 times difference in the compiler efficiency costs
nothing relatively to the cost of "occasional" algorithmic details.
P> Use a functional language and buy a faster computer with the saved
P> money/time.
I would rather propose to skip the "money, computer" part, and instead
to spend this won time in thinking over the algorithm.
This would increase the performance much more.
------------------
Sergey Mechveliani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
