Excerpts from Jon Harrop's message of Thu Aug 14 23:16:26 +0200 2008: > 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.
I'm talking about the informal algorithms, their independent of that kind of things... -- Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
