2009/2/20 Bulat Ziganshin <bulat.zigans...@gmail.com>: > Hello Thomas, > > Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:19:47 AM, you wrote: > >> I'm not sure what you're getting at Bulat √ it's been demonstrated >> that ghc is slower than gcc for most cases at the moment (many >> benchmarks will back this up), *however*, it's also easily verified >> that ghc has had significantly less effort directed at it than gcc and >> other imperative compilers, thus, there are many places it can improve >> greatly. > > of course. what fool will say that ghc cannot be optimized the same > way as gcc? if we spent the same amount of time for improving ghc > back-end as was spent for gcc (tens or hundreds man-years?), then > *low-level* Haskell code will become as fast as C one, while remaining > several times slower to write > >> In this case, you've pointed out a really great source of heavy >> optimisation. Thanks a lot :) Now perhaps it might be an idea to be >> constructive, rather than trying to stand like nelson going "HA HA" at >> the people with the inferior compiler. > > ghc is superior compiler and it's my main instrument. but it can't > make coffee and doesn't contain sophisticated code generator. it's why > i dissuade from writing video codes in haskell and i don't like > situation when someone too lazy to test speed yourself tell us tales > and attack me when i say about real situation
Please people, I found the ghc/ghc+D64/jhc/gcc/ comparison awesome to read; but find quite distracting to have all those 'other' comments. I guess everyone knows quite clearly what others have in mind and where they stand. Maybe it is not necessary to repeat those things every time ? And more specifically, is it necessary to get some inflamatory tone ? Thanks to share knowledge and haskell love ! Thu _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe