Various people write:
> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And so on. Please, these are _not_ the correct list addresses to
us for this list -- all list mail ought to go to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and not any of these variants.
[Glasgow people, is it possible to tweak the list config so that
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Matthew Donadio wrote:
> Dave Tweed wrote:
> > But there's a lot of problems, probably more in the hazy region between
> > science & engineering, where `numerically intensive' algorithms are
> > developed which don't look anything like existing classical techniques.
> > Here
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Alex Ferguson wrote:
>
> Various people write:
> > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I guess, I am guilty too. Sorry.
But I have a related question. Suppose I want to browse
the archive (I am afraid I lost some answers because
of o
At 02:30 -0700 98/10/16, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>Another approach is to compete not head-to-head on speed, but on
>cunning. Get a good library of numeric procedures (e.g. Mathlab), ...
Note that it is "MatLab", short for "Matrix Laboratory".
>...interface them to Haskell, and use Haskell
> From: Alex Ferguson[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Various people write:
> > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> And so on. Please, these are _not_ the correct list addresses to
> us for this list -- all list mail ought to go to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> and not any of these variants.
At 02:30 -0700 98/10/16, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>Declarative languages *ought* to give a big handle on optimisation.
>FORTRAN compilers spend a lot of time deriving a functional program
>from the imperative one they started with, but they have to make
>conservative approximations. So in princi
A few comments:
>> Could Haskell ever be used for serious scientific computing?
>> What would have to be done to promote it from a modelling
>> tool to a more serious number crunching engine? Maybe not
>> necessarily competing with Cray, but not terribly lagging
>> far behind
There has been a lot of work in the MIT Computation Structures
Group on functional programming for Scientific Computing.
A full list of publications can be found on their Web site,
http:/www.csg.lcs.mit.edu
(look under "CSG Publications"), including the following
CSG-Memo-383 [abstract]
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Another approach is to compete not head-to-head on speed, but on
> cunning. Get a good library of numeric procedures (e.g. Mathlab),
> interface them to Haskell, and use Haskell as the glue code to make
> it really fast to write complex numerical
Hey! Good for you John!! We seem to hear an awlfull lot about
what Haskell does not(or should) do. Never too much about
what does or can be made to do.
Ed
John O'Donnell wrote:
> There's another way to look at the role of Haskell in scientific computing.
> All the discussion so
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, John O'Donnell wrote:
> So there is another way to use functional languages: they can help you to
> express your algorithm cleanly and simply, and they can also help you in
> deriving a more efficient low-level version via program transformation. If
> you like, it's pos
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Dave Tweed wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>
> > Another approach is to compete not head-to-head on speed, but on
> > cunning. Get a good library of numeric procedures (e.g. Mathlab),
> > interface them to Haskell, and use Haskell as the glue code
[...]
> Have quadtrees of David Wise's ([WEISE] and [WEISE1])
> proved to be of any importance to scientific computing
> in Haskell? Among other things, the quadtree algorithms
> supposed to improve array updating schemes. Judging
> from the publishing dates (1992, 1995 with a
ance area.
Rex Page
__
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, John O'Donnell wrote:
>
> There's another way to look at the role of Haskell in scientific computing.
> All the discussion so far is assuming that (1) you write your program in
> Haskell, (2) you run
ax +1 (617) 692 7650
> --
> From: Hans Aberg[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 1998 9:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Simon Peyton-Jones
> Subject: RE: Haskell in Scientific Computing?
>
> At 02:30 -0700 98/10/16, Simon Peyton-Jones wro
There's another way to look at the role of Haskell in scientific computing.
All the discussion so far is assuming that (1) you write your program in
Haskell, (2) you run it through a compiler, (3) you compare the speed with
Fortran, (4) you sigh and give up...
In this picture, Haske
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, David Barton wrote:
> I don't know if it is better to go with a commercial product here
> (like Mathlab) or one of the semi-public domain (Reduce) or wholly
> public domain tools here. It would be a shame if Haskell were
> publically available but the thing that made it us
Dave Tweed wrote:
> But there's a lot of problems, probably more in the hazy region between
> science & engineering, where `numerically intensive' algorithms are
> developed which don't look anything like existing classical techniques.
> Here the issue is to generate CORRECT results REASONABLY QUI
There is a copylefted almost-clone of Matlab called Octave, which
uses the GNU tools, available at http://www.che.wisc.edu/octave/.
It also includes hooks to many well-known scientific libraries, such
LAPACK, FFTPACK, etc.
-Rod Price
David Barton wrote:
> Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
>
> > Anothe
> But there's a lot of problems, probably more in the hazy region between
> science & engineering, where `numerically intensive' algorithms are
> developed which don't look anything like existing classical techniques.
> Here the issue is to generate CORRECT results REASONABLY QUICKLY
Exactly. Fin
Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
> Another approach is to compete not head-to-head on speed, but on
> cunning. Get a good library of numeric procedures (e.g. Mathlab),
> interface them to Haskell, and use Haskell as the glue code to make
> it really fast to write complex numerical algorithms. 99% of
> Could Haskell ever be used for serious scientific computing?
> What would have to be done to promote it from a modelling
> tool to a more serious number crunching engine? Maybe not
> necessarily competing with Cray, but not terribly lagging
> far behind the other languages?
> At 14:36 -0500 98/10/09, Jan Skibinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Could Haskell ever be used for serious scientific computing?
...
>On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Hans Aberg wrote:
> I think you need to define "scientific computing": At 09:57 -0500
>98/10/14,
Jan Skibinski wrote:
> I do not
At 14:36 -0500 98/10/09, Jan Skibinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Could Haskell ever be used for serious scientific computing?
I think you need to define "scientific computing": There is usually a
tradeoff between runtime abstraction/generality and speed. Haskell provides
some generality o
Jan Skibinski wrote:
>> A practicing engineer might be interested in job at hand
> and not pretending doing any science whatsoever. Yet he/she
> would need a reliable tool that could handle the size of
> the problem (be it 10, 100, 1000, or million nodes or dimensio
Hans Aberg wrote:
> At 14:36 -0500 98/10/09, Jan Skibinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Could Haskell ever be used for serious scientific computing?
>
> I think you need to define "scientific computing": There is usually a
> tradeoff between runtime abstraction/generality and speed. Haskel
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Steve Stevenson wrote:
>
> I had the pleasure of talking to Jim McGraw of Sisal fame about a year
> ago. I asked him why Sisal just didn't make further inroads in the
> scientific community. He seemed to be of the opinion that inertia
> played a big part in it.
N
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Hans Aberg wrote:
> At 14:36 -0500 98/10/09, Jan Skibinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Could Haskell ever be used for serious scientific computing?
>
> I think you need to define "scientific computing": There is usually a
> tradeoff between runtime abstraction/gene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 7:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Haskell in Scientific Computing?
> --- truncated --
I had the pleasure of talking to Jim McGraw of Sisal fame about a year
ago. I asked him why Sisal just didn't make further inroads in the
scientific community. He seemed to be of the opinion that inertia
played a big part in it.
It would be interesting if someone would sit down and interview hi
Dear Haskellers:
Could Haskell ever be used for serious scientific computing?
What would have to be done to promote it from a modelling
tool to a more serious number crunching engine? Maybe not
necessarily competing with Cray, but not terribly lagging
far behind
31 matches
Mail list logo
