On 15-Oct-1998, Hans Aberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 17:25 +1000 98/10/15, David Glen JEFFERY wrote:
Does something like this exist? FWIW, I'm using Hugs 1.4
I gather that "FWIW" is yet another SSMA; what does it mean?
For What It's Worth. Okay... I'll bite. What's SSMA?
Anyhow, for
Could Haskell ever be used for serious scientific computing?
What would have to be done to promote it from a modelling
tool to a more serious number crunching engine? Maybe not
necessarily competing with Cray, but not terribly lagging
far behind the other languages?
Classes appear in *contexts*, not in types. So there's no
confusion. This is
another `bug fix' which simplifies the language, and I think
we should do it.
Consider the function
t :: T a = T a - T a
I think that it's far from clear what each of the T's mean!
Worse, in Haskell 2
Alan Wood:
...
On another point ... I assume *someone* out there must have re-written the ML
code from Rydeheard and Burstall's 'Computational Category Theroy' in Haskell -
even if only partially. If you have, I'd welcome a copy of the code.
Alan
--
Dr A.M. Wood
There's another way to look at the role of Haskell in scientific computing.
All the discussion so far is assuming that (1) you write your program in
Haskell, (2) you run it through a compiler, (3) you compare the speed with
Fortran, (4) you sigh and give up...
In this picture, Haskell is
| Comments to me directly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), or the Haskell mailing
| list.
Here we are ... (comments are marked with `]')
Typing of do expressions
[...]
2. Nuke MonadZero altogether. Instead, augment the Monad
At 02:30 -0700 98/10/16, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Declarative languages *ought* to give a big handle on optimisation.
FORTRAN compilers spend a lot of time deriving a functional program
from the imperative one they started with, but they have to make
conservative approximations. So in principle
Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
Another approach is to compete not head-to-head on speed, but on
cunning. Get a good library of numeric procedures (e.g. Mathlab),
interface them to Haskell, and use Haskell as the glue code to make
it really fast to write complex numerical algorithms. 99% of the
A few comments:
Could Haskell ever be used for serious scientific computing?
What would have to be done to promote it from a modelling
tool to a more serious number crunching engine? Maybe not
necessarily competing with Cray, but not terribly lagging
far behind the other
I guess I missed the controversy over at ICFP, but I would like to know
why overloading of lists is being eliminated.
Arguments for Overloading:
1. Generality/Re-use is good
The big point of Hughes "Why Functional Progamming Matters" is that
functional programming enables much more high level
What Simon is probably referring to is the fact that Fortran compilers
attempt to convert the internal representation of the program into
"SSA-form"
(Static Single Assignment form).
You might want to take a look at the following article that makes this
point well:
"SSA is Functional
At 02:30 -0700 98/10/16, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Another approach is to compete not head-to-head on speed, but on
cunning. Get a good library of numeric procedures (e.g. Mathlab), ...
Note that it is "MatLab", short for "Matrix Laboratory".
...interface them to Haskell, and use Haskell as
There is a copylefted almost-clone of Matlab called Octave, which
uses the GNU tools, available at http://www.che.wisc.edu/octave/.
It also includes hooks to many well-known scientific libraries, such
LAPACK, FFTPACK, etc.
-Rod Price
David Barton wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
Another
Hey! Good for you John!! We seem to hear an awlfull lot about
what Haskell does not(or should) do. Never too much about
what does or can be made to do.
Ed
John O'Donnell wrote:
There's another way to look at the role of Haskell in scientific computing.
All the discussion so far is assuming
Dave Tweed wrote:
But there's a lot of problems, probably more in the hazy region between
science engineering, where `numerically intensive' algorithms are
developed which don't look anything like existing classical techniques.
Here the issue is to generate CORRECT results REASONABLY
[...]
Have quadtrees of David Wise's ([WEISE] and [WEISE1])
proved to be of any importance to scientific computing
in Haskell? Among other things, the quadtree algorithms
supposed to improve array updating schemes. Judging
from the publishing dates (1992, 1995 with a
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Dave Tweed wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Another approach is to compete not head-to-head on speed, but on
cunning. Get a good library of numeric procedures (e.g. Mathlab),
interface them to Haskell, and use Haskell as the glue code to
Various people write:
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And so on. Please, these are _not_ the correct list addresses to
us for this list -- all list mail ought to go to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and not any of these variants.
[Glasgow people, is it possible to tweak the list config so that
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Alex Ferguson wrote:
Various people write:
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I guess, I am guilty too. Sorry.
But I have a related question. Suppose I want to browse
the archive (I am afraid I lost some answers because
of
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, John O'Donnell wrote:
So there is another way to use functional languages: they can help you to
express your algorithm cleanly and simply, and they can also help you in
deriving a more efficient low-level version via program transformation. If
you like, it's
An illustration of the Eureka phenomenon is described in
Barasch and Page, "Parallel computation, functional programming, and
Fortran 8x", Hypercube Multiprocessors 1986 (Michael T. Heath, ed.)
SIAM, 1986, 57-69
In this case, it amounted to a reversal in the order of nested loops
that
From: Alex Ferguson[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Various people write:
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And so on. Please, these are _not_ the correct list addresses to
us for this list -- all list mail ought to go to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and not any of these variants.
And
| Ralf Hinze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| jod 78 a.out
| a.out: fatal error: relocate_TSO
| jod 79
|
| Gotta be a native code generator bug. Try compiling with -fvia-C.
|
| Cheers,
| Simon
Does not work, I'm afraid ...
jod 157 ghc -fvia-C EDigits.lhs
ghc: module version changed
Sigbjorn writes:
john_r_velman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been using HUGS for a few weeks, learning Haskell, and fairly
excited about it. When I saw the GHC 4 announcement, I decided to try
to install GHC. But..
[snip]
Hi,
have a look at
Hi,
In ghc/Makefile it says:
17 # Order is important! driver/ has to come before includes/ which
18 # again has to come before the rest.
19 #
20 # If we're booting from .hc files, swap the order
21 # we descend into compiler/ and lib/
22 #
23 ifeq
Hi,
I tried to bootstrap ghc4.00 on AIX with the "--enable-hc-boot"
flag, but I got an error:
RTS -K2m -H10m -RTS-g rename/ParseIface.y
make[2]: RTS: Command not found
make[2]: *** [rename/ParseIface.hs] Error 127
make[1]: *** [boot] Error 1
make: *** [boot] Error 1
It looks like the
Jan Kort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes:
Hi,
In ghc/Makefile it says:
17 # Order is important! driver/ has to come before
includes/ which
18 # again has to come before the rest.
19 #
20 # If we're booting from .hc files, swap the order
21 # we
27 matches
Mail list logo
