Various people write:
> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And so on. Please, these are _not_ the correct list addresses to
us for this list -- all list mail ought to go to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and not any of these variants.
[Glasgow people, is it possible to tweak the list config so that
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Matthew Donadio wrote:
> Dave Tweed wrote:
> > But there's a lot of problems, probably more in the hazy region between
> > science & engineering, where `numerically intensive' algorithms are
> > developed which don't look anything like existing classical techniques.
> > Here
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Alex Ferguson wrote:
>
> Various people write:
> > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I guess, I am guilty too. Sorry.
But I have a related question. Suppose I want to browse
the archive (I am afraid I lost some answers because
of o
At 02:30 -0700 98/10/16, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>Another approach is to compete not head-to-head on speed, but on
>cunning. Get a good library of numeric procedures (e.g. Mathlab), ...
Note that it is "MatLab", short for "Matrix Laboratory".
>...interface them to Haskell, and use Haskell
> From: Alex Ferguson[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Various people write:
> > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> And so on. Please, these are _not_ the correct list addresses to
> us for this list -- all list mail ought to go to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> and not any of these variants.
At 02:30 -0700 98/10/16, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>Declarative languages *ought* to give a big handle on optimisation.
>FORTRAN compilers spend a lot of time deriving a functional program
>from the imperative one they started with, but they have to make
>conservative approximations. So in princi
A few comments:
>> Could Haskell ever be used for serious scientific computing?
>> What would have to be done to promote it from a modelling
>> tool to a more serious number crunching engine? Maybe not
>> necessarily competing with Cray, but not terribly lagging
>> far behind
| Comments to me directly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), or the Haskell mailing
| list.
Here we are ... (comments are marked with `]')
Typing of do expressions
[...]
2. Nuke MonadZero altogether. Instead, augment the Monad c
There has been a lot of work in the MIT Computation Structures
Group on functional programming for Scientific Computing.
A full list of publications can be found on their Web site,
http:/www.csg.lcs.mit.edu
(look under "CSG Publications"), including the following
CSG-Memo-383 [abstract]
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Another approach is to compete not head-to-head on speed, but on
> cunning. Get a good library of numeric procedures (e.g. Mathlab),
> interface them to Haskell, and use Haskell as the glue code to make
> it really fast to write complex numerical
Hey! Good for you John!! We seem to hear an awlfull lot about
what Haskell does not(or should) do. Never too much about
what does or can be made to do.
Ed
John O'Donnell wrote:
> There's another way to look at the role of Haskell in scientific computing.
> All the discussion so far is assuming
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, John O'Donnell wrote:
> So there is another way to use functional languages: they can help you to
> express your algorithm cleanly and simply, and they can also help you in
> deriving a more efficient low-level version via program transformation. If
> you like, it's pos
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Dave Tweed wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>
> > Another approach is to compete not head-to-head on speed, but on
> > cunning. Get a good library of numeric procedures (e.g. Mathlab),
> > interface them to Haskell, and use Haskell as the glue code
[...]
> Have quadtrees of David Wise's ([WEISE] and [WEISE1])
> proved to be of any importance to scientific computing
> in Haskell? Among other things, the quadtree algorithms
> supposed to improve array updating schemes. Judging
> from the publishing dates (1992, 1995 with a
An illustration of the Eureka phenomenon is described in
Barasch and Page, "Parallel computation, functional programming, and
Fortran 8x", Hypercube Multiprocessors 1986 (Michael T. Heath, ed.)
SIAM, 1986, 57-69
In this case, it amounted to a reversal in the order of nested loops
that wasn
What Simon is probably referring to is the fact that Fortran compilers
attempt to convert the internal representation of the program into
"SSA-form"
(Static Single Assignment form).
You might want to take a look at the following article that makes this
point well:
"SSA is Functional Programm
There's another way to look at the role of Haskell in scientific computing.
All the discussion so far is assuming that (1) you write your program in
Haskell, (2) you run it through a compiler, (3) you compare the speed with
Fortran, (4) you sigh and give up...
In this picture, Haskell is bei
Alan Wood:
...
> On another point ... I assume *someone* out there must have re-written the ML
> code from Rydeheard and Burstall's 'Computational Category Theroy' in Haskell -
> even if only partially. If you have, I'd welcome a copy of the code.
>
> Alan
>
> --
> Dr A.M. Wood
I guess I missed the controversy over at ICFP, but I would like to know
why overloading of lists is being eliminated.
Arguments for Overloading:
1. Generality/Re-use is good
The big point of Hughes "Why Functional Progamming Matters" is that
functional programming enables much more high level not
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, David Barton wrote:
> I don't know if it is better to go with a commercial product here
> (like Mathlab) or one of the semi-public domain (Reduce) or wholly
> public domain tools here. It would be a shame if Haskell were
> publically available but the thing that made it us
Dave Tweed wrote:
> But there's a lot of problems, probably more in the hazy region between
> science & engineering, where `numerically intensive' algorithms are
> developed which don't look anything like existing classical techniques.
> Here the issue is to generate CORRECT results REASONABLY QUI
There is a copylefted almost-clone of Matlab called Octave, which
uses the GNU tools, available at http://www.che.wisc.edu/octave/.
It also includes hooks to many well-known scientific libraries, such
LAPACK, FFTPACK, etc.
-Rod Price
David Barton wrote:
> Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
>
> > Anothe
> But there's a lot of problems, probably more in the hazy region between
> science & engineering, where `numerically intensive' algorithms are
> developed which don't look anything like existing classical techniques.
> Here the issue is to generate CORRECT results REASONABLY QUICKLY
Exactly. Fin
Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
> Another approach is to compete not head-to-head on speed, but on
> cunning. Get a good library of numeric procedures (e.g. Mathlab),
> interface them to Haskell, and use Haskell as the glue code to make
> it really fast to write complex numerical algorithms. 99% of
> Classes appear in *contexts*, not in types. So there's no
> confusion. This is
> another `bug fix' which simplifies the language, and I think
> we should do it.
Consider the function
t :: T a => T a -> T a
I think that it's far from clear what each of the T's mean!
Worse, in Haskell
> Could Haskell ever be used for serious scientific computing?
> What would have to be done to promote it from a modelling
> tool to a more serious number crunching engine? Maybe not
> necessarily competing with Cray, but not terribly lagging
> far behind the other languages?
On 15-Oct-1998, Hans Aberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 17:25 +1000 98/10/15, David Glen JEFFERY wrote:
> >Does something like this exist? FWIW, I'm using Hugs 1.4
>
> I gather that "FWIW" is yet another SSMA; what does it mean?
For What It's Worth. Okay... I'll bite. What's SSMA?
Anyhow
27 matches
Mail list logo
