On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Scott J. wrote: > I don't think I have got a fair answer to my questions regarding these > (silly?) benchmarks. I cannot write the programs with the unboxed "things", > but I have both the Ocaml compiler and the latest Glasgow compiler installed > on my windows XP machine. So, if someone sends the programs I'll type it in > and let you know these results. I don't want to be impolite : the fact that > I am on this list proves that I am seriously interested in the elegance of > Haskell. But I am searching a language to program in it: I think e.g. to a > front end of the Lout typesetting program. Also I have the impression that > such fancy things as HOpenGL are not for windows because of the GTK > bindings. It seems that I have to move to a Linux OS.
My messages were more addressing the point which came up about what the aims of benchmarking `ought to be' rather than addressing the question. It seems to me most of the most responses are to the question `could a lazy language compiler be written to give fast code' and you're looking at the question `are there settings and programming idioms for a current compiler that give fast code'. I'll leave it up to the much better qualified various experts with the various compilers to give detailled advice. ___cheers,_dave_________________________________________________________ www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~tweed/ | `It's no good going home to practise email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | a Special Outdoor Song which Has To Be work tel:(0117) 954-5250 | Sung In The Snow' -- Winnie the Pooh _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
