Why would lists-of-lists be faster than unboxed arrays? No indexing
arithmetic? Deforestation? I'm very curious. The first advice I got
from #haskell when trying to speed up my original code was "get rid of
all those lists."
First, I think lists-of-lists is only faster (if at all) in your special
case of having only very small matrices. Moreover, the pure
implementation runs without the 'near zero' tests and the array
implementation is not as smart as possible. For example instead of
f j1 where f j | j>n = return () ; f j = work_on j >> f (j+1)
you could simply write
mapM_ work_on [j1..n]
and save some comparsions.
Second, clearly you have to "get rid of all those lists", as long as you
are trying to implement the algorithm in the usual algebra book style,
where you find formulations that are suitable to mutable array
implementations. The pure implementation instead tries to exploit the
recursive structure and some invariants of Gauss' algorithm in a direct way.
BR,
--
-- Mirko Rahn -- Tel +49-721 608 7504 --
--- http://liinwww.ira.uka.de/~rahn/ ---
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
