On Jul 30, 2008, at 7:38 AM, Eric Kow wrote: > [b] on a practical front, darcs2 is slower than darcs1 on some stuff. > It deals *much* better with conflicts (much reduced risk of > exponential blowup), but day-to-day things are slow enough to be > annoying
Could you point us to some of the tickets which are/were most frustrating to the GHC developers? I'm a darcs-2 user, and the performance is acceptable for me, and dramatically better than darcs-1 for one of my common use cases (a darcs get of a whole large repository when more or less all the patches are already in darcs-2's local cache). I'm not sure if the darcs-2 performance is acceptable to my programming partners. If they complain, I will try to open a ticket showing exactly what is dissatisfying to them. I have the idea that darcs-2 has not yet benefitted from newly developed Haskell tools such as profilers. In response to Patrick Waugh's comments, I would *like* to think that Haskell programs can be optimized at least as well as C++ programs can be, but I guess this remains to be empirically determined. Regards, Zooko _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
