On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:43:08AM +0100, Andrzej Jaworski wrote: > It sounds reasonable. However knowledge of how program performs in > micro-steps does not add up, so the benchmarks may wet up appetite for lunch > that does not come. I have pointed into such example - an astonishing and > unexplained underperformance of Haskell with all the profiling information > at hand. > > I guess Haskell compilers are not particularly good at detecting specific > properties of a program and hence with optimizing it. This however shows up > with size so Donald's benchmarks cannot catch that out. > > For this reason, undiagnosed and untreated, Haskell has been abandoned for > example in Algebraic Dynamic Programming, in spite of its unparallel > expressive power and a lot of hope. In ILP/IFP and GP it failed too.
C, thirty years ago: (disclaimer, I'm 16) * Very much slower than assembly * Very much easier to use than assembly * Very easy to interface with assembly So everyone used C with assembler inner loops, no big deal. Haskell, now: * Very much slower than C * Very much easier to use than C * Very easy to interface with C So I think we should do the same. It even shows in the Shootout - the programs that are simultaneously fastest and clearest are not pure Haskell, but delegate their innermost loops to tuned C libraries (FPS and GMP). Stefan _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
