Gwern Branwen wrote:
Out of curiosity, why does ByteString wreck the cleanness of your BWT? It seems
to me that if you're doing
bwt :: String -> Whatever
bwt arg = ...(time and space intensive ByteString operations) $
ByteString.pack arg
then your code is only modestly less clean.
On Jul 7, 2007, at 7:23 , Thomas Conway wrote:
I've been working in a mostly Python shop this last year, and it
reinforces my belief that people who don't like strong static typing
are yahoos, not professionals interested in producing high quality
code. Maybe I just don't get the line between p
andrewcoppin:
>
> Does anybody have any clue why ByteStrings are actually faster? (And why
> this information isn't easily findable anywhere - must shorly be a VFAQ.)
>
It's well documented in the API documentation for bytestrings.
Start here:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/fps/Data-Byte
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
i've improved memory usage of my program 3 times one month after i've
started to use Haskell, and 4 times more 1.5 years later (the last
improvement included development of ByteString-alike library and
strictifying some computations). i think that for programming-in-large
e
bulat.ziganshin:
> Hello Thomas,
>
> Sunday, July 8, 2007, 2:36:43 AM, you wrote:
> > This is certainly true. I've coded up in less than six months,
> > something that uses better algorithms and finer grained concurrency
> > than the software I used to work on, and the latter represented 5 or
> >
Hello Thomas,
Sunday, July 8, 2007, 2:36:43 AM, you wrote:
> This is certainly true. I've coded up in less than six months,
> something that uses better algorithms and finer grained concurrency
> than the software I used to work on, and the latter represented 5 or
> more man-years of coding. Howev
On 7/8/07, Dave Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This of course sets up the best answer to this debate: For a hard
problem, one can express better algorithms in Haskell that would
simply be too painful to code in other languages, swamping any
considerations about the speed of Haskell versus C for
Thomas Conway wrote:
[great comments on non-strict, static typing, purely functional]
Don't worry, I was just writing a sarcasm to an apparent attitude of "X
is rare edge iff I can't figure out X". I have always been believing in
all the points you make.
__
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
trebla:
I don't know. #math is larger than #accounting. Is it because math is
more mainstream than accounting? I bet it is because math is more
math is more *interesting* than accounting? :-)
With all due respect to accounting, which is a fine profession and a
g
Dave Bayer wrote:
I was beginning to accept that I might die before clearing my pipeline
of research projects I want to code up.
...so it's *not* just me!
Haskell has given me new hope.
Indeed. ;-)
Today I hve implemented encoders and decoders for RLE, MTF, Fibonacci
codes, and LZW. Next
On Jul 7, 2007, at 4:23 AM, Thomas Conway wrote:
the performance model for haskell programs is at best inscrutable
I punched my first Basic program by hand with a paper clip, in my
high school library. Even after experiencing an APL interpreter at
19, it has taken half my life to fully int
On 7/7/07, Albert Y. C. Lai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Non-strict (most implementations lazy): rarely useful if you ask the
mainstream.
Of your propositions, I must say this one has the most merit, though
not exactly as stated. :-) Being non-strict does allow some nice
expressiveness, but has
On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 13:39 +1000, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
> Give #haskell is a far larger community than:
Well, Haskell clearly has a well developed IRC community.
Using Google to search Usenet posts in 2007:
Haskell:21000
Lisp: 29000
Erlang: 2500
Ocaml:
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
andrewcoppin:
Yeah, #haskell is pretty big - 300 people idling and 1-3 people actually
talking. :-P
Hey! We answer questions and write code for free, and you misrepresent
the population anyway:
Maximum users seen in #haskell: 354, currently: 318 (97.8%)
andrewcoppin:
> Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
> >Give #haskell is a far larger community than:
> >
> >#lisp
> >#erlang
> >#scheme
> >#ocaml
> >
> >As well as
> >
> >#java
> >#javascript
> >#ruby
> >#lua
> >#d
> >#perl6
> >
> >Maybe we need to reconsider where t
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
Give #haskell is a far larger community than:
#lisp
#erlang
#scheme
#ocaml
As well as
#java
#javascript
#ruby
#lua
#d
#perl6
Maybe we need to reconsider where the (FP) mainstream is now? :-)
Yeah, #haskell is pretty big
On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 15:08 +1000, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
. . .
> > I don't know. #math is larger than #accounting. Is it because math is
> > more mainstream than accounting? I bet it is because math is more
>
> math is more *interesting* than accounting? :-)
If we gotta have a theory,
trebla:
> Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
> >Give #haskell is a far larger community than:
> >
> >#lisp
> >#erlang
> >#scheme
> >#ocaml
> >
> >As well as
> >
> >#java
> >#javascript
> >#ruby
> >#lua
> >#d
> >#perl6
> >
> >Maybe we need to reconsider where the (FP
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
Give #haskell is a far larger community than:
#lisp
#erlang
#scheme
#ocaml
As well as
#java
#javascript
#ruby
#lua
#d
#perl6
Maybe we need to reconsider where the (FP) mainstream is now? :-)
I don't know. #math is larger th
trebla:
> Andrew Coppin wrote:
> >Personally, I just try to avoid *all* language extensions - mainly
> >because most of them are utterly incomprehensible. (But then, perhaps
> >that's just because they all cover extremely rare edge cases?)
>
> Haskell is an extremely rare edge case to begin with
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Personally, I just try to avoid *all* language extensions - mainly
because most of them are utterly incomprehensible. (But then, perhaps
that's just because they all cover extremely rare edge cases?)
Haskell is an extremely rare edge case to begin with.
Non-strict (most i
21 matches
Mail list logo
