It was suggested that it should be ns, and I complained that ns would be obsolete in a while. What I really wanted was a switch to Double (and just using seconds), instead we got ps. At least ps won't get obsolete in a while.
-- Lennart On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:06 AM, ChrisK <hask...@list.mightyreason.com> wrote: > Manlio Perillo wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> Just out of curiosity, but why Haskell 98 System.CPUTime library module >> uses picoseconds instead of, say, nanoseconds? >> >> At least on POSIX systems, picoseconds precision is *never* specified. >> > > I have not idea. But at a guess, I would say that 1 ns is not such a small > time interval anymore. The CPU speeds are about 3 GHz, so 0.3 ns per CPU > clock. Even the RAM clock in a laptop (e.g. Apple's 17" Mac Pro) is 1066 > MHz, so the internal there is just under 1 ns. > > Whoever picked picoseconds has made it possible to talk about a single clock > interval for hardware like this. > > -- > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
