Re: Reduction count as efficiency measure?

[Carl R. Witty]

Keith Wansbrough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> So while Hugs gives you a reduction count (or even a millisecond
> duration), this is essentially meaningless: in a real application
> you would compile the code with an optimising compiler.  The effect
> this can have on your execution time can easily be more than merely
> a constant factor: it can change the order of your algorithm.

Is this true in practice?  That is, are there programs which have
different asymptotic running times when compiled under ghc or hbc than
when running under Hugs?

It would actually surprise me if there were; I'm having a hard time
imagining a realistic optimization that would do this.  (Which could
easily be a failure of my imagination.)

Carl Witty
[EMAIL PROTECTED]