> it is more often than not the case that the reason for this is not that Y
is
> faster than X, but that one has learned a lot about the problem when
> implementing in X. So in general you see an improvement even when X == Y,
To be honest I suspect that in ADP case it is exactly that, particularly
I think that we should follow the advice of Kristen Chevalier, and
redirect this discussion to haskell-cafe
Fawzi
On Feb 27, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Sven Panne wrote:
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 13:44, Andrzej Jaworski wrote:
I have learned logic from much deeper sources;-)
My statement was:
Guys
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 13:44, Andrzej Jaworski wrote:
> I have learned logic from much deeper sources;-)
> My statement was:
> Guys started in Haskell and got to conclusion that for performance reasons
> it is better to move to C. The guys know what they are doing.
>
> I hope that helps;-)
H
I have learned logic from much deeper sources;-)
My statement was:
Guys started in Haskell and got to conclusion that for performance reasons
it is better to move to C. The guys know what they are doing.
I hope that helps;-)
___
Haskell mailing list
duncan.coutts:
> On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 18:57 -0800, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
>
> > Haskell, now:
> > * Very much slower than C
> > * Very much easier to use than C
> > * Very easy to interface with C
> >
> > So I think we should do the same. It even shows in the Shootout - the
> > programs that a
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 02:13, Andrzej Jaworski wrote:
> > writing a real compiler for that language made sense, and also the
> > choice of c as language for it, but I think that it would have been
> > possible to write it in haskell without a big performance hit.
>
> ADP was conceived in Haske
On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 18:57 -0800, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
> Haskell, now:
> * Very much slower than C
> * Very much easier to use than C
> * Very easy to interface with C
>
> So I think we should do the same. It even shows in the Shootout - the
> programs that are simultaneously fastest and cle
> writing a real compiler for that language made sense, and also the
> choice of c as language for it, but I think that it would have been
> possible to write it in haskell without a big performance hit.
ADP was conceived in Haskell and the research is done by very brainy people,
so I suggest to b
Thanks for the answers Bulat and Andrzej,
so it seems that I was a little to naive, I think that I have
understood what Andrzej wanted to say,
but I still don't buy it all.
With google I could find only something on Algebraic Dynamic
Programming (links to the others?), there they went from a
The examples I pointed to seem to share strong and relatively consistent
logic of a program. In case of large GA (e.g. Royal Road Problem) and IFP
(e.g. ADATE) SML was exhaustively proved to predict this logic much better.
In case of Algebraic Dynamic Programming C compiler seems to address
specif
Hello Fawzi,
Monday, February 26, 2007, 3:44:09 PM, you wrote:
> I am new to haskell, but I find your assertions surprising, given
> that from my experience the really performance critical code is
> little, and the reset can be even interpreted.
> As far as I know C/C++ or similar are not rea
I am new to haskell, but I find your assertions surprising, given
that from my experience the really performance critical code is
little, and the reset can be even interpreted.
As far as I know C/C++ or similar are not really that advanced with
respect to whole program optimization (not much
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 06:57:29PM -0800, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
> Haskell, now:
> * Very easy to interface with C
I might buy "as easy as interfacing a GCed language with a non-GCed
language can reasonably be". When the GC abstraction leaks, it leaks
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:43:08AM +0100, Andrzej Jaworski wrote:
> It sounds reasonable. However knowledge of how program performs in
> micro-steps does not add up, so the benchmarks may wet up appetite for lunch
> that does not come. I have pointed into such example - an astonishing and
> unexpla
It sounds reasonable. However knowledge of how program performs in
micro-steps does not add up, so the benchmarks may wet up appetite for lunch
that does not come. I have pointed into such example - an astonishing and
unexplained underperformance of Haskell with all the profiling information
at han
fw:
> * John Meacham:
>
> >> Clean has also declined in these benchmarks but not that much as Haskell.
> >> According to John van Groningen Clean's binary-trees program in the
> >> previous
> >> shootout version used lazy data structure which resulted in lower memory
> >> usage and much faster ex
* John Meacham:
>> Clean has also declined in these benchmarks but not that much as Haskell.
>> According to John van Groningen Clean's binary-trees program in the previous
>> shootout version used lazy data structure which resulted in lower memory
>> usage and much faster execution. That was remo
L.S.,
It is a very bad idea to automatically run programs sent to your computer;
anyone can do whatever they like with your computer.
Regards,
Henk-Jan van Tuyl
--
http://Van.Tuyl.eu/
--
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:31:21 +0100, Andrzej Jaworski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It would be enoug
On 25/01/07, Brent Fulgham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
3. I don't recall which test was changed to its less-efficient counterpart,
but as I recall this was due to some sniping that the lazy analysis was
avoiding doing some of the work. After comparing the tests, we ended up
agreeing and the H
himself:
> It would be enough to exhaustively analyse examples of the kind I gave:
> single algorithm with fast non-Haskell implementation but very slow in
> Haskell. The article describes laborious but unsuccessful attempt to
> pinpoint what makes Haskell over 500 times slower than SML on a geneti
Hi John,
Laziness is a double sword. In case of Clean it worked for it, I don't know
however if the same was behind shooting Haskell in the foot in the recent
Language Shootout. The example of a genetic algorithm that I gave and those
that I wanted to spare you (from inductive functional programmi
It would be enough to exhaustively analyse examples of the kind I gave:
single algorithm with fast non-Haskell implementation but very slow in
Haskell. The article describes laborious but unsuccessful attempt to
pinpoint what makes Haskell over 500 times slower than SML on a genetic
algorithm. 7 ye
nt
| Sent: 25 January 2007 09:01
| To: Simon Marlow
| Cc: haskell@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: [Haskell] [Fwd: Re: Computer Language Shootout]
|
| Where are SPJs disclosed comments from Brent Fulgham?
|
| On Jan 25, 2007, at 8:55 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
|
| > Forwarding on beha
On 1/25/07, John Meacham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 08:55:37AM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Clean has also declined in these benchmarks but not that much as Haskell.
> According to John van Groningen Clean's binary-trees program in the previous
> shootout version used lazy
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 08:55:37AM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Clean has also declined in these benchmarks but not that much as Haskell.
> According to John van Groningen Clean's binary-trees program in the previous
> shootout version used lazy data structure which resulted in lower memory
> usage
(Simon and Andy, if you guys got this twice, sorry about the double
mail)
On 25 Jan 2007, at 09:55, Simon Marlow wrote:
Forwarding on behalf of Andrzej Jaworski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Original Message
From: Andrzej Jaworski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perhaps making a collective
Marlow
| Cc: haskell@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: [Haskell] [Fwd: Re: Computer Language Shootout]
|
| Where are SPJs disclosed comments from Brent Fulgham?
|
| On Jan 25, 2007, at 8:55 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
|
| > Forwarding on behalf of Andrzej Jaworski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| >
| > --
Where are SPJs disclosed comments from Brent Fulgham?
On Jan 25, 2007, at 8:55 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
Forwarding on behalf of Andrzej Jaworski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Original Message
From: Andrzej Jaworski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dear fellows,
It is ironic that just after SPJ di
Forwarding on behalf of Andrzej Jaworski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Original Message
From: Andrzej Jaworski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dear fellows,
It is ironic that just after SPJ disclosed Comments from Brent Fulgham on
Haskell and the shootout the situation has radically changed for th
29 matches
Mail list logo
