On Sep 24, 2008, at 15:20 , Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 11:13:14 PM, you wrote:
can come up with, including amorphous and vacuous ones" (you can
almost always write something faster, but with how much effort?)
as i said, eddorts to optimize Haskell code is several tim
Hello Brandon,
Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 11:13:14 PM, you wrote:
> can come up with, including amorphous and vacuous ones" (you can
> almost always write something faster, but with how much effort?)
as i said, eddorts to optimize Haskell code is several times larger
while the result is seve
Hello Donnie,
Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 7:16:04 PM, you wrote:
> I don't understand why you are willing to criticize GHC, but
> unwilling to help improve GHC. Personally, I think it is a waste of
> everyone's time for you to just complain about GHC without offering
> suggestions on how to imp
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 00:46 +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello Jonathan,
>
> Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 12:30:19 AM, you wrote:
>
> >> yes, in asm number of instructions executed more or less define
> >> number of CPU cycles used.
>
>
>
> well, i more or less know all this stuff. but
Hello Jonathan,
Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 12:30:19 AM, you wrote:
>> yes, in asm number of instructions executed more or less define
>> number of CPU cycles used.
well, i more or less know all this stuff. but are you really compare
to Haskell??? does Haskell programs typically written i
