On Thursday 14 August 2008 21:57:59 you wrote: > Excerpts from Jon Harrop's message of Thu Aug 14 15:57:47 +0200 2008: > > On Thursday 14 August 2008 12:50:43 blue storm wrote: > > > and Haskell is faster than most (scripting) languages used these days > > > anyway). > > > > Despite being written in Python, Mercurial is orders of magnitude faster > > than Darcs. > > The difference of performances between Darcs and Mercurial is 99% due > differences in algorithms not in the implementation language. So this > comparison does not make sense!
Only if the choice of algorithm was independent of the language, which is rarely the case. For example, Fortran programmers use arrays when they are unsuitable and their programs can be slower than scripting languages as a consequence. That is Fortran's fault. Does the Darcs implementation overuse singly linked lists because they are more accessible? Are the reported stack overflows indicative of this? I don't know but I certainly wouldn't rule it out as a possibility. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
