On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lyle Kopnicky wrote: > >> >> I think it's a combination of 1) the expressiveness measure is too >> simplistic, measuring number of lines alone, or counting comments, and 2) >> the problem set is skewed toward number-crunching, which is not (say) >> Prolog's strong suit. >> > Also there is a strong tendency to optimise the code for performance rather > than conciseness (concision?). In the past this tended to bloat (e.g.) > Haskell entries as simple intuitive code was replaced by arrays of unboxed > integers and similar C-like constructs. > Well, they're supposedly measuring performance as well. If concise Haskell is non-performant, and performant Haskell is verbose, this ought to be reflected in the charts. But it managed to perform pretty well in both. I don't think Haskell got short shrift in this analysis. Perhaps other languages suffered a more "written verbosely for performance" problem. - Lyle
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
