jerzy.karczmarczuk: > Stefan O'Rear adds to the dialogue: > > >Prabhakar Ragde wrote: > >>Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote: > >> > >>>Just a trivial comment... 1. Don't speak about comparing *languages* > >>>when you compare *algorithms*, > >>> and in particular data structures. > >>>2. Please, DO code the above in C, using linked lists. Compare then. 3. > >>>Check the influence of bare printing, separated from the computation. > >> > >>Isn't GHC clever enough to optimize away the entire computation if there > >>is no I/O? > > > >Yes, but GHC is not clever enough to solve the perfect number > >classification problem. 'length' will suffice, and is prefered for most > >enumeratioon benchmarks. > > My point didn't concern that point. Haskell compiler cannot change an > algorithm using lists into something which deals with indexable arrays, > usually faster. Indexing may be faster than the indirection, and the > allocation of memory costs. And there is laziness... > That's why I proposed to check what happens if one uses linked links in > "C". Well, the follow-ups seem to suggest that the main time eater was the > overloading. I must say that I am really astonished. It is hard to believe > that such a signature can make a factor of 8. Never seen that before.
That fits with my experience writing low level numeric code -- Integer can be a killer. -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
