I will geve a short answer to Rene Grognard, and to D.Tweed, since it is
late and people will close the campus in a few minutes.
Prof. Malaquias, from time to time, disappears. I do not know where he goes
when this happens. However, he does not answer mails, and does not
update his home page. Thi
Wow, thanks very much Simon! Someday perhaps maybe the compilers will be
smart enough to take whatever crazy expressions I write and find the best
way to do it :) Actually I am finally starting to learn a bit about the
execution model so that I can try and optimize my code. Thanks again!
+
Date sent: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 13:06:08 +
From: Jerzy Karczmarczuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Caen, France
Copies to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Scientific uses of Haskell?
I have long been interested in Co
On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> Do you know what makes Maple so attractive for newbies, for teachers,
> etc? One of the reasons is simply scandalous, awful, unbelievably
> silly : the lack of distinction between a symbolic indeterminate,
> and the program variable. You write ...
Hi,
having worked with some CA systems I want to add that
not only the collection of algorithms is important but also the
data base of algebraic objects.
For instance the group theoretic package Magma (formerly Caley) comes
with as much information on finite groups as the the libraries of algo
Eduardo Costa:
> With a little make up, things
> like Zermello-Frankel notation would give a good replacement
> for SQL. A good computer algebra library (like the one that
> prof. R. Malaquias is creating) would make Haskell a good
> scripting language to replace things like Mathlab, Maple, etc.
On 25-Nov-1999, George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the GHC developers have got their priorities about right. Yes, GHC
> is slow, hard to build, and big. That's because it's a research project.
I rather expect the *research* project to compile to something like, say,
lambda-l
Ronald
Thanks for your program, which had the amazing property that
Hugs runs it 20x as fast as GHC4.05 -O!
The reason turns out to be that you have hit on an optimisation
that Hugs makes and GHC doesn't! But it is one that I don't
expect to happen often enough to be worth adding to GHC. I'd
| Does that mean that (to borrow from the GHC docs) "smaller, faster,
| stingier" are acceptable items for the wishlist? That
| possibility had never occurred to me.
Certainly they are acceptable wishes! Of course, they are wishes we all
have -- who would not want smaller, faster?
However, th
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Third, while the things you mention are important, they are not
> at the top of the wish-list that Sven maintains for users of
> Haskell
(http://marutea.pms.informatik.uni-muenchen.de/wishlist/index.html)
Does that mean that (to borrow from the GHC docs) "smaller, fast
On Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 06:29:24PM -0500, Eduardo Costa wrote:
> Dear list members.
> In my opinion, a compiler for a functional language should have the following
> features:
[snip]
> 6- The code generated must be small, and use heap sparingly.
I was amazed that an utterly trivial program compil
11 matches
Mail list logo
