[redirecting to haskell-cafe, since this is getting to be a long discussion]
On 2/26/07, Andrzej Jaworski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The examples I pointed to seem to share strong and relatively consistent logic of a program. In case of large GA (e.g. Royal Road Problem) and IFP (e.g. ADATE) SML was exhaustively proved to predict this logic much better.
Can you clarify what you mean by this? How do you formally prove that a programming language (rather than a specific implementation of one) performs better for a given problem? Or do you mean that a specific implementation of this problem in SML performed better than a specific implementation of it in Haskell?
In case of Algebraic Dynamic Programming C compiler seems to address specific properties of a program more adequately which leads to substantial improvements in optimization. It is important to stress that we deal in ADP with strong logic of the domain application. Handcrafting C code for regular applications does not show that kind of advantage, so it wouldn't leave Haskell in the dust. In general declarative nature has the edge over C craftsmanship (see: http://www.clip.dia.fi.upm.es/papers/carro06:stream-interpreter-TR.pdf).
I've read a few of your posts and I still don't understand what you mean by a compiler "address[ing] specific properties of a program". Can you give an example of the kinds of program properties you're talking about, and explain how C compilers exploit them in a way that Haskell compilers currently fail to do? Cheers, Kirsten -- Kirsten Chevalier* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Often in error, never in doubt "Religion is just a fancy word for the Stockholm Syndrome." -- lj user="pure_agnostic" _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
