Re: [Haskell-cafe] Translation of Haskell type classes

2010-02-04 Thread Daniel Fischer
Am Donnerstag 04 Februar 2010 16:32:24 schrieb Enrique Martín:
> Hello all,
>
> few days ago I made some experiments with Haskell type classes. I wrote
> a small Haskell program for searching in sorted lists, defining my own
> type classes for equality (MyEq) and order (MyOrd) so that they only
> have one member function:
>

>
> I made some tests in GHC 6.8.2 and I noticed that the original program
> with type classes runs pretty faster than the translated program. For
> example, reducing the expression
>   search (S Z) (replicate 100 Z)
> needs 2.07 seconds in the original program. However the translated
> expression
>   search dictMyOrdNat (S Z) (replicate 100 Z)
> needs 3.10 seconds in the translated program, which is one more second.
>
> Surprised with the results, I repeated the test this time in Hugs Sept.
> 2006. I noticed that the difference was not so big:
>search (S Z) (replicate 10 Z)   -->   (2100051 reductions,
> 2798068 cells, 2 garbage collections)
>search dictMyOrdNat (S Z) (replicate 10 Z)   -->   (2200051
> reductions, 2898067 cells, 3 garbage collections)
>
>
> My first idea was that type classes were implemented using the approach
> of dictionaries, but the test showed me that it is not true (mainly in
> GHC).

It is the approach used by GHC (you can see it by looking at the core you 
get with the flag -ddump-simpl).

The point is that you ran the code interpreted. Now, dictionary-passing for 
type classes is baked into the compiler, it's rather good at it even on 
interpreted code, while if you implement it yourself, you get ordinary 
function calls, looking up the comparison function on each iteration, 
probably.

The difference disappears if you compile the code, at least with 
optimisations.

> Then I discovered the paper "Implementing Haskell overloading",
> Augustsson 1993, when he describes some ways to improve the speed of
> Haskell overloading.
>
> So my questions are:
>   1) is the enhancement obtained only using the optimizations of
> Augustsson's paper?
>   2) Could anyone tell me where I can find the translation of type
> classes that GHC and Hugs use?
>
> Thank you very much,
>
> Enrique M.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


[Haskell-cafe] Translation of Haskell type classes

2010-02-04 Thread Enrique Martín

Hello all,

few days ago I made some experiments with Haskell type classes. I wrote 
a small Haskell program for searching in sorted lists, defining my own 
type classes for equality (MyEq) and order (MyOrd) so that they only 
have one member function:



class MyEq a where
  eq :: a -> a -> Bool
  
class MyEq a => MyOrd a where

  less :: a -> a -> Bool
  
data Nat = Z | S Nat


instance MyEq Nat where
  eq Z Z = True
  eq Z (S x) = False
  eq (S x) Z = False
  eq (S x) (S y) = eq x y
  
instance MyOrd Nat where

  less Z Z  = False
  less Z (S x)  = True
  less (S x ) Z = False
  less (S x) (S y)  = less x y

search :: MyOrd a => a -> [a] -> Bool
search x [] = False
search x (y:ys) = (eq x y) || (less y x && search x ys)


I also wrote the translation of this program using the classical 
approach of dictionaries that appears in "How to make ad-hoc 
polymorphism less ad hoc", Wadler & Blott 1989 or "Type Classes in 
Haskell", Cordelia V. Hall et. al. 1996.



-- From the definition of type class MyEq
data DictMyEq a = DictMyEq (a -> a -> Bool)

eq :: DictMyEq a -> (a -> a -> Bool)
eq (DictMyEq x) = x
  


-- From the definition of type class MyOrd
data DictMyOrd a = DictMyOrd (DictMyEq a) (a -> a -> Bool)

getMyEqFromMyOrd :: DictMyOrd a -> DictMyEq a
getMyEqFromMyOrd (DictMyOrd x y) = x

less :: DictMyOrd a -> (a -> a -> Bool)
less (DictMyOrd x y) = y
  


data Nat = Z | S Nat


-- From the instance MyEq Nat
eqNat :: Nat -> Nat -> Bool
eqNat Z Z = True
eqNat Z (S x) = False
eqNat (S x) Z = False
eqNat (S x) (S y) = eqNat x y
  
dictMyEqNat :: DictMyEq Nat

dictMyEqNat = DictMyEq eqNat


-- From the instance MyOrd Nat
lessNat :: Nat -> Nat -> Bool
lessNat Z Z  = False
lessNat Z (S x)  = True
lessNat (S x ) Z = False
lessNat (S x) (S y)  = lessNat x y

dictMyOrdNat :: DictMyOrd Nat
dictMyOrdNat = DictMyOrd dictMyEqNat lessNat


search :: DictMyOrd a -> a -> [a] -> Bool
search _ x [] = False
search dict x (y:ys) = (eq (getMyEqFromMyOrd dict) x y) || (less dict y 
x && search dict x ys)




I made some tests in GHC 6.8.2 and I noticed that the original program 
with type classes runs pretty faster than the translated program. For 
example, reducing the expression

 search (S Z) (replicate 100 Z)
needs 2.07 seconds in the original program. However the translated 
expression

 search dictMyOrdNat (S Z) (replicate 100 Z)
needs 3.10 seconds in the translated program, which is one more second.

Surprised with the results, I repeated the test this time in Hugs Sept. 
2006. I noticed that the difference was not so big:
  search (S Z) (replicate 10 Z)   -->   (2100051 reductions, 
2798068 cells, 2 garbage collections)
  search dictMyOrdNat (S Z) (replicate 10 Z)   -->   (2200051 
reductions, 2898067 cells, 3 garbage collections)
  

My first idea was that type classes were implemented using the approach 
of dictionaries, but the test showed me that it is not true (mainly in 
GHC). Then I discovered the paper "Implementing Haskell overloading", 
Augustsson 1993, when he describes some ways to improve the speed of 
Haskell overloading.


So my questions are:
 1) is the enhancement obtained only using the optimizations of 
Augustsson's paper?
 2) Could anyone tell me where I can find the translation of type 
classes that GHC and Hugs use?


Thank you very much,

Enrique M.


___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe