> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 15:30:09 +1200 > From: "Richard O'Keefe" <o...@cs.otago.ac.nz> > Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Can Haskell outperform C++? > To: Roman Werpachowski <roman.werpachow...@gmail.com> > Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org > Message-ID: <b43b8ce3-9f90-4dc3-8725-d62298397...@cs.otago.ac.nz> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > On 17/05/2012, at 10:07 PM, Roman Werpachowski wrote: >>> No slide deck required. The task is "generating alternating permutations". >>> >>> Method 1: generate permutations using a backtracking search; >>> when a permutation is generated, check if it is alternating. >>> >>> Method 2: use the same backtracking search, but only allow extensions >>> that preserve the property of being an alternating permutation. >> >> Gregg, >> >> what makes Method 2 so much harder than Method 1 to implement in C or C++? > > > It was me, not Gregg.
My apologies to you and Gregg. > There was and is no claim that method 2 is "much harder > to implement in C or C++". In fact both methods *were* implemented easily in > C. OK, got that now. So Haskell doesn't have a *big* advantage over C w/r to the ease of implementation of both algorithms? > The claim was and remains solely that > THE TIME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN *ALGORITHMS* > can be bigger than > THE TIME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN *LANGUAGES* > and is in this particular case. Yes, but aren't the differences in the same ballpark, and if we want to compare *languages*, we should use identical algorithms to make the comparison fair. > > (And that's despite the fact that the C version kept the set of unused > elements as a one-native-word bit mask, while the Prolog version kept it > as a linked list.) > > There is also a second claim, which I thought was uncontentious: > the relative difficulty of tasks varies with language. It matters much less if you write the code to be run multiple times. Regards, RW _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
