Andrzej Jaworski wrote: > Hi Knights, > > As I regretfully pointed out earlier in [Fwd: Re: Computer Language > Shootout] > large search and simulations are not for Haskell. This is equally true with > GHC 6.5 http://eric_rollins.home.mindspring.com/haskellAnt.html. > After checking the code I must say this is not convincing at all. The code isn't optimized. That said, I think we can thank you for some more code to compare the speed with ML once someone has tuned it :)
> Also there is much illusion about Haskell potential ease at handling > mathematics. Yes Haskell is excellent for demonstration but trying to > implement algorithms that would do trickier things is pretty tough. A thing > so far in my experience, it is the opposite. it takes a while to learn to think in the right way however. > where Haskell could potentially offer something that a regular CAS cannot is > calculating a tensors with symbolic indices (without components) > so that one could have components calculated for specific cases on the end > of general calculation. Perhaps somebody more technical than me could take > the challenge? It could lure theoretical physicists into Haskell which might > pay back. One of them has recently provided Curry with the fastest > compiler:-) > _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell