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
Hi,
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?
Cheers
16 matches
Mail list logo