[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk) wrote,
> S.D.Mechveliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> > So far, no clear progrm example appeared in this list to demonstrate
> > Haskell's in-efficiency in comparison to other languages.
>
> I have not done benchmarking myself yet, but in
> <http://www.brookes.ac.uk/~p0071749/papers/bridging.ps.gz>
> they describe an algorithm for text formatting.
>
> | lines | chars | size(KB) | time(s) | memory(KB) |
> ----------+-------+-------+----------+---------+------------+
> Haskell | 163 | 4640 | 410 | 45.2 | 4505 |
> Modula-2 | 551 | 10005 | 74 | 18.6 | 356 |
> C++ | 389 | 5832 | 328 | 3.9 | 368 |
>
> It is not quite fair because in Modula-2 and C++ all data structures
> were of fixed size, but...
This may lead to a number of different conclusions:
* Haskell is hopeless,
* the author of the program has no clue about Haskell,
* the Haskell compiler is hopeless,
* the Haskell interpreter is really only an interpreter, or
* the author forgot to pass -O when calling the Haskell
compiler.
I am sure, you will find some more alternatives. The fact
that the given URL simply produces a "not found" error
message on my machine, doesn't help either. However, as
this is apparently the Web page of Jeremy Gibbons, I am
willing to exclude the second of the above options.
In other words: If you give numbers, please put them in
context. Otherwise, they are useless. I might also remark
that it is not particularly enlightening to claim that it is
possible to write inefficient programs in Haskell - I do
this every day. The interesting question is, is it possible
to write efficient programs? If not, why? If so, how
difficult is it to do so?
Manuel
PS: I am sorry for the impatient tone. In the Linux
community, posting, such as the cited on, are called
FUD: They spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, but miss
enough detail to be easy to refute.
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/FUD.html
