[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>There is no need to beat a dead horse, though. This benchmark sets out >>to test fgets / atoi, and that is all. There are better benchmarks to >>spend time on. > > > You can say that again! > Ah..sarcasm, I know that one.
Actually, I submitted a slightly faster sum-file entry for Haskell tonight. So I did kick the horse around, and I learned how to use -funbox-strict-fields. > Is a persecution complex required for Haskell programming :-) The sum-file benchmark is not about my cleverness. It is designed to test the language's library routines. I quote Brent: > Yes -- it was designed as a test of the standard I/O > system. > > -Brent See...It is like the "startup" benchmark -- which just tests how long it takes to start the program (and print "Hello World."). > > ackermann, sum-file, random, startup (aka hello world) are all > left-over from the old Doug Bagley Great Computer Language Shootout - > they are just little snippets of nothing that provide an easy starting > point - takfp and harmonic are much the same. takfp and ackerman and harmonic can be good tests of how well the langauage handles recursion. > > I'm waiting for the complaints that binary-trees was designed to favour > functional programming languages ;-) ;-) == sarcasm > > best wishes, Isaac > Cheers, Chris _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe