G'day all.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 09:59:31AM +0100, D. Tweed wrote:
> It's in saying this is warranted by `almost all'
> processes being bound by things other than throughput which may be true in
> the average sense, but I don't think that all programmers have almost all
> their programming tas
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
>> Perhaps the ICFP contests are actually fairer as benchmarks than as
>> competitions?
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 09:59:31AM +0100, D. Tweed wrote:
> Interesting thought, particularly if the judges announced changes to what
> the problem to be solved was
"Scott J." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> I don't think I have got a fair answer to my questions regarding these
> (silly?) benchmarks. I cannot write the programs with the unboxed "things",
> but I have both the Ocaml compiler and the latest Glasgow compiler installed
> on my windows XP machine. S
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Scott J. wrote:
> I don't think I have got a fair answer to my questions regarding these
> (silly?) benchmarks. I cannot write the programs with the unboxed "things",
> but I have both the Ocaml compiler and the latest Glasgow compiler installed
> on my windows XP machine. So
-
From: "Josef Svenningsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Scott J." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: can a lazy language give fast code?
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Scott J. wrote:
>
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: can a lazy language give fast code?
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
>
> > Let me clarify what I meant by that and see if you still disagree.
> >
> > R
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
> Let me clarify what I meant by that and see if you still disagree.
>
> Realistically, _most_ new software installations today (I deliberately
> ignore legacy systems etc) are not overloaded, in that there are more
> "computrons" available than are r
Andrew J Bromage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 01:57:58PM +0200, Josef Svenningsson wrote:
>
> > I think the reason why Haskell compilers aren't generating any faster code
> > is that there is a lack of competition among different compilers. And I
> > think that the lack o
G'day all.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 01:57:58PM +0200, Josef Svenningsson wrote:
> I think the reason why Haskell compilers aren't generating any faster code
> is that there is a lack of competition among different compilers. And I
> think that the lack of competition depends on that noone wants t
G'day all.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 08:14:27AM +0100, D. Tweed wrote:
> Mmm, such statements really assume that there's a sensible meaning to
> `almost always' when applied to the set of all programmers, whereas I
> think a much more realistic assumption is that `there's lots of people out
> ther
Hi,
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Scott J. wrote:
> Can one write withthe Haskell compliler faster code than in the
> examples of http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/ where GHC (old
> Haskell 98?) seems to be much slower than Ocaml or Mlton both strict
> functional languages. Can one expect any improvem
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
[snip]
> In the end, though, benchmarks ignore one of the most important rules
> of software performance: "throughput" (i.e. the amount of processing
> that your system can do just prior to being overloaded) is almost never
> the most important conside
G'day all.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:23:05AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Many of those programs can be written differently to improve
> performance.
To be fair, Doug admits this as well as a lot more:
http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/method.shtml#flaws
Despite these flaws, I did
J." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:23 AM
Subject: RE: can a lazy language give fast code?
> > Can one write withthe Haskell compliler faster code than in
> > the examples of http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/ where
> > GHC
> Can one write withthe Haskell compliler faster code than in
> the examples of http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/ where
> GHC (old Haskell 98?) seems to be much slower than Ocaml or
> Mlton both strict functional languages.
> Can one expect any improvements in speed in the future?
Many o
15 matches
Mail list logo
