On 05/05/2013 12:07 AM, Dave Smith wrote: > On May 4, 2013, at 9:22 PM, Tod Hansmann wrote: > >> ... > ... > >> Like Sasha says in his 5:01 MST email today, Haskell doesn't "beat" C. At >> what? > ... > > The Haskell-to-C comparison is particularly apt because both Haskell and C > actually compile down to native code[1], whereas many of the other examples > do not (Perl, Python[2], Java, etc). That might lead one to believe that > Haskell could theoretically yield runtime performance as good as C for this > problem. [1.1*] >> Why does this matter? It doesn't, and yet that's the driver for Sasha for >> some reason. > ... > > I don't think anyone is waking away from this thread shouting "See, I told > you C was faster than Haskell in all the things!!"
Speak for yourself. CFTW! ;-) > >> ... > ... > > --Dave > > [1] Yes, I know that Haskell can compile to bytecode, LLVM, and even C, in > addition to native code. It has one of the most flexible toolchains of any > language I am aware of. [1.1*] I didn't know haskell could compile to multiple output forms; it does make learning haskell a more appealing idea. Isn't python able to do the same thing? I'd heard rumor that such was the case, but I'm so busy maintaining someone else's perl I haven't had a chance to learn python. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
