Am 01.02.2011 21:53, schrieb Jonathan M Davis: > On Tuesday 01 February 2011 12:27:32 bearophile wrote: >> Walter: >>> It's exponentially bad performance makes it short, not useful. >> >> A program with high complexity is not a problem if you run it only on few >> very short examples. There is a place to care for performance (like when >> you design a function for Phobos) and there are places where you care for >> other things. >> >> I suggest top stop focusing only on a fault of a program that was not >> designed for performance (and if you want to start looking at the numerous >> good things present in Haskell. Haskell language and its implementation >> contains tens of good ideas). > > The issue is that if you want something in Phobos, it _does_ need to be > designed > with performance in mind. Anything which isn't efficient needs to have a very > good > reason for its existence which balances out its lack of efficiency. If the > Haskell > implementation isn't performant enough, then it doesn't cut it for Phobos, > even > if it's a good fit for Haskell. > > - Jonathan M Davis
Well, he didn't want the slow Levenshtein implementation in Phobos (if I understood correctly), but more higher order functions like fold*. These are not inherently slow and are most probably useful to implement fast functions as well ;)
