On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Jed Brown <j...@jedbrown.org> wrote: > Matthew Knepley <knep...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Richard Mills <richardtmi...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Jed Brown <j...@jedbrown.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Barry Smith <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> writes: > >>> > >>> > These results seem reasonable to me. > >>> > > >>> > What makes you think that KNL should be doing better than it does > in > >>> comparison to Haswell? > >>> > > >>> > The entire reason for the existence of KNL is that it is a way for > >>> > Intel to be able to "compete" with Nvidia GPUs for numerics and > >>> > data processing, for example in the financial industry. By > >>> > "compete" I mean convince gullible purchasing agents for large > >>> > companies to purchase Intel KNL systems instead of Nvidia GPU > >>> > systems. There is nothing in the hardware specifications of KNL > >>> > that would indicate that it should work better on this type of > >>> > problem than Haswell, in fact the specifications indicate that the > >>> > Haskell should perform better > >>> > >>> Boom! Time to rewrite PETSc in Haskell! > >>> > >> > >> Yeah, forget this debate about using C++! > >> > > > > I think what Jed means is Time to write a Haskell program to Write PETSc. > > Free your points and your mind will follow. > > https://wiki.haskell.org/Pointfree >
After reading that, its hard to see why people use anything else Matt -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener