Hello Bill, Tuesday, September 26, 2006, 1:03:02 AM, you wrote:
> I spent some time working on a large Prolog application where > performance was critical, ... > I think you're right that Haskell should > be in the same bag as Prolog. and Haskell is the same as C++ when performance is critical, while C++ is the same as assembler. believe me - i has experience of optimizing both Haskell and C++ programs :) i think it's wrong to make decisions about language expressiveness on the base of requirements for writing optimized programs. my _application_ Haskell/C++ code contains about 80-90%% of code that _don't need_ to be optimized and it's just the case when higher language expressiveness rules. but for the remaining 10-20%% optimizing of higher-level language becomes a nightmare and it is much better to use lower-level language in these places (if it's possible!) instead of using lower-level techniques that just don't fit in the higher-language toolbox :( ps: btw, i was really thinking in assembler when optimizing my Haskell lib. it is why it so fast. on good-old DEC cpus whole getChar/putChar actions may be compiled in just one asm instruction :) so, using your logic, Haskell is 1-gl language :) -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe