Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:33:12 AM, you wrote:
Don't forget jhc:
i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
jhc isn't our production compiler
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com
On 20 Feb 2009, at 23:44, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:33:12 AM, you wrote:
Don't forget jhc:
i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
jhc isn't our production compiler
Why not? There's nothing stopping you from choosing
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:52:27PM +0100, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 20 Feb 2009, at 23:44, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:33:12 AM, you wrote:
Don't forget jhc:
i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
jhc isn't our production
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 2:49:25 AM, you wrote:
what is substantial size? can jhc be used for video codec, i.e.
probably no extensions - just raw computations, and thousands or tens
of thousands LOCs?
Perhaps. A bigger issue in practice is that the larger a program is, the
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 3:42:24 AM, you wrote:
this is true for *application* code, but for codec you may have lots of
code that just compute, compute, compute
Yes indeed. If there is code like this out there for haskell, I would
love to add it as a test case for jhc.
