On 2/1/11 2:53 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
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
I think this is a bit much, though probably a good principle to live
into. For example Phobos does include linear search routines that are
"inefficient" - i.e. O(m * n). It also has many abstractions that are
arguably not as efficient as they could be, either at high level, low
level, or both. But something like foldr that uses head recursion would
be indeed rather dangerous to include.
Andrei
