I see.
I read some chapters from Purely Functional Data Structures when I was in
college in order to understand some tree algorithms, but not the whole book.
Do you think that could help me to understand performance problems with
code (poorly) written in Haskell?
>From reading your post, I can gu
On 11/29/12 2:17 PM, Ivan Salazar wrote:
The bad side is that direct translation of algorithms are almost always
very slow and the work needed to make them perform is very mind bending.
Indeed. The thing is, all algorithms make (implicit) assumptions about
the cost model of the underlying lang
On 29 November 2012 18:09, Fixie Fixie wrote:
>
> What is your experience, dear haskellers? To me it seems this beautiful
> language is useless without a better lazy/eager-analyzer.
Since when has speed been the sole arbiter of utility?
10 years ago I switched from Clean to Haskell, even thoug
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Fixie Fixie wrote:
> That's really an argument for upgrading to 7.4.2 :-)
>
> Another reason for doing things with haskell is this mailing list.
FYI I'm still looking into this issue as I'm not 100% happy with the
code GHC generates.
_
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Fixie Fixie wrote:
> The program seems to take around 6 seconds on my linux-box, while the c
> version goes for 0.06 sekcond.
>
> That is really some regression bug :-)
>
> Anyone with a more recent version thatn 7.4.1?
On 7.4.2:
$ time ./c_test
...
real0m0.
Ack, it seems like you're running into one of these bugs (all now
fixed, but I don't know in which GHC version):
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/search?q=doubleFromInteger
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org
Oh, my - what an indentation :-)
New try:
- Videresendt melding
Fra: Fixie Fixie
Til: "haskell-cafe@haskell.org"
Kopi: Clark Gaebel
Sendt: Torsdag, 29. november 2012 20.57
Emne: Vedr: [Haskell-cafe] To my boss: The code is cool, but it is about 100
times slower than t
If you can give an example of some underperforming code, I'm sure someone
(or several people) on this list would be more than happy to help you make
it more performant.
Generally, it doesn't take much. It's all in knowing where to look. Also,
if you know performance is key, you should be using the
I hear you, my friend.
What I love of Haskell is that a lot of algorithms are very clean to
express and understand compared to, say, Lisp or C. Compared to Lisp,
function manipulation is also very clean (even compared to Racket). A great
plus is also type inference.
The bad side is that direct tr
Hi Felix,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Fixie Fixie
wrote:
> The problem seems to be connected to lazy loading, which makes my programs
> so slow that I really can not show them to anyone. I have tried all tricks
> in the books, like !, seq, non-lazy datatypes...
My advice usually goes like
Hi there,
I'm only an amateur so just my 2 cent: Haskell can be really fast, but
reaching that speed can be all but trivial: you need to use different data
types (e.g. ByteString vs. the normal String type) relies on
"unconventional" IO (e.g. Conduit, Iterateee) and still be ready to go "out
of the
Hi all haskellers
I every now and then get the feeling that doing my job code in Haskell would be
a good idea.
I have tried a couple of times, but each time I seem to run into performance
problems - I do lots of heavy computing.
The problem seems to be connected to lazy loading, which makes my
12 matches
Mail list logo
