fw: > * John Meacham: > > >> Clean has also declined in these benchmarks but not that much as Haskell. > >> According to John van Groningen Clean's binary-trees program in the > >> previous > >> shootout version used lazy data structure which resulted in lower memory > >> usage and much faster execution. That was removed by the maintainer of the > >> shootout and replaced by a much slower one using strict data structure. > > > > Why was this done? > > I suppose the itent of the binary-trees benchmark is to measure > allocation performance in the presence of a fairly large (well, not in > today's terms) data structure. Using laziness to prevent that data > structure from being built (or use additional sharing) kind of defeats > the purpose of the benchmark. > > Note that these are microbenchmarks, not real applications. Imposing > such rules makes sense.
Agreed. I've submitted a strict variant that should allocate similarly to OCaml. I'd suggest stating this requirement for strict allocation in the spec. Regards, Don _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
