On 16.08.10 14:44, Daniel Fischer wrote:
Hi Bulat,
On Monday 16 August 2010 07:35:44, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Daniel,
Sunday, August 15, 2010, 10:39:24 PM, you wrote:
That's great. If that performance difference is a show stopper, one
shouldn't go higher-level than C anyway :)
*all* speed measurements that find Haskell is as fast as C, was
broken.
That's a pretty bold claim, considering that you probably don't know all
such measurements ;)
[...]
If you are claiming that his test was flawed (and since the numbers clearly
showed Haskell slower than C, just not much, I suspect you do, otherwise I
don't see the point of your post), could you please elaborate why you think
it's flawed?
Hi Daniel,
you are right, the throughput of 'cat' (as proposed by Bulat) is not a
fair comparison, and 'all speed measurements favoring haskell are
broken' is hardly a reasonable argument. However, 'wc -m' is indeed a
rather slow way to count the number of UTF-8 characters. Python, for
example, is quite a bit faster (1.60s vs 0.93s for 70M) on my
machine[1,2]. Despite of all this, I think the performance of the text
package is very promising, and hope it will improve further!
cheers, benedikt
[1] A special purpose C implementation (as the one presented here:
http://canonical.org/~kragen/strlen-utf8.html) is even faster (0.50),
but that's not a fair comparison either.
[2] I do not know Python, so maybe there is an even faster way than
print len(sys.stdin.readline().decode('utf-8'))
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
