To make the transition easier I have an experimental library which
defines a ByteString as a type synonym of a Storable.Vector of Word8
and provides the same interface as the bytestring package:
https://github.com/basvandijk/vector-bytestring
That's interesting Bas. What bothers me about
On 10 July 2013 08:57, Alfredo Di Napoli alfredo.dinap...@gmail.com wrote:
To make the transition easier I have an experimental library which
defines a ByteString as a type synonym of a Storable.Vector of Word8
and provides the same interface as the bytestring package:
Hello Bas,
sorry for being unclear. What you say is correct, I was referring (and I
realised this after posting :D ) that the real
annoying thing is fragmentation in memory. Due to the fact the GC can't
move those objects, if we have long running
processes our memory will become more and more
Hi Tom,
thank you for the explanation.
I believe you are suggesting that there is redundancy in the
implementation details of these libraries, not in the APIs they
expose.
I meant to say that there is redundancy in *both*. The libraries
mentioned in this thread re-implement the same type
On 5 June 2013 11:50, Peter Simons sim...@cryp.to wrote:
I meant to say that there is redundancy in *both*. The libraries
mentioned in this thread re-implement the same type internally and
expose APIs to the user that are largely identical.
I agree. I hope that ByteStrings will be replaced by
Oops.
Ben Gamari bgamari.f...@gmail.com писал(а) в своём письме Tue, 04 Jun
2013 04:41:53 +0300:
To be perfectly clear, ByteString and Text target much different
use-cases and are hardly interchangeable. While ByteString is, as the
name suggests, a string of bytes, Text is a string of
Hi Clark,
How is this a problem?
If you're representing text, use 'text'.
If you're representing a string of bytes, use 'bytestring'.
If you want an array of values, think c++ and use 'vector'.
the problem is that all those packages implement the exact same data
type from scratch,
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:01:37PM +0200, Peter Simons wrote:
How is this a problem?
If you're representing text, use 'text'.
If you're representing a string of bytes, use 'bytestring'.
If you want an array of values, think c++ and use 'vector'.
the problem is that all those
Just to clarify for those on the sidelines, the issue is duplication of
implementation details, rather than duplication of functionality?
Well to me, that is not the main issue. The main issue is that you have
to study all of them and depending on which libraries you want to use
have to
I really don't understand this concern.
These libraries are tuned for wildly different workloads and use cases, so
these sorts of micro benchmarks are an Apples to Frogs comparisons.
(even aside from the fact that you'll get very different perf if you used
-fllvm and set things up so the array
On 05/06/13 02:49, silvio wrote:
Just to clarify for those on the sidelines, the issue is duplication of
implementation details, rather than duplication of functionality?
Well to me, that is not the main issue. The main issue is that you
have to study all of them and depending on which
array does provide folding functions, found in its Foldable and
Traversable instances.
Where can I find this? I can neither in the array package nor with
google nor with hoogle.
Silvio
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On 05/06/13 07:01, silvio wrote:
array does provide folding functions, found in its Foldable and
Traversable instances.
Where can I find this? I can neither in the array package nor with
google nor with hoogle.
Silvio
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing
These libraries are tuned for wildly different workloads and use cases,
so these sorts of micro benchmarks are an Apples to Frogs comparisons.
You can argue that for any benchmark, but sometimes the choice is
between Apples and Frogs. If you have some more extensive benchmarks I'm
happy to
Hi Tom,
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:01:37PM +0200, Peter Simons wrote:
How is this a problem?
If you're representing text, use 'text'.
If you're representing a string of bytes, use 'bytestring'.
If you want an array of values, think c++ and use 'vector'.
the problem is
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 11:23:16PM +0200, Peter Simons wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:01:37PM +0200, Peter Simons wrote:
If you're representing text, use 'text'.
If you're representing a string of bytes, use 'bytestring'.
If you want an array of values, think c++ and use
write :: MVector a - Int - a - ST s a
This should have been:
write :: MVector s a - Int - a - ST s a
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
silvio silvio.fris...@gmail.com писал(а) в своём письме Mon, 03 Jun 2013
22:16:08 +0300:
Hi everyone,
Every time I want to use an array in Haskell, I find myself having to
look up in the doc how they are used, which exactly are the modules I
have to import ... and I am a bit tired of
Artyom Kazak y...@artyom.me writes:
silvio silvio.fris...@gmail.com писал(а) в своём письме Mon, 03 Jun 2013
22:16:08 +0300:
Hi everyone,
Every time I want to use an array in Haskell, I find myself having to
look up in the doc how they are used, which exactly are the modules I
have
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:16:08 +
silvio silvio.fris...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
Every time I want to use an array in Haskell, I find myself having to
look up in the doc how they are used, which exactly are the modules I
have to import ... and I am a bit tired of staring at type
How is this a problem?
If you're representing text, use 'text'.
If you're representing a string of bytes, use 'bytestring'.
If you want an array of values, think c++ and use 'vector'.
If you want to mutate arrays, first, make sure you do. You probably don't.
If you're sure, use MVector.
Don't
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Clark Gaebel cgae...@uwaterloo.ca wrote:
How is this a problem?
If you're representing text, use 'text'.
If you're representing a string of bytes, use 'bytestring'.
If you want an array of values, think c++ and use 'vector'.
If you want to mutate arrays,
That's absolutely true. Wrappers around vector for your multidimensional
access is probably best, but Vectors of Vectors are usually easier.
But again, you're right. Multidimensional access is a pain. If it's a
matrix of numerical values, you could take a look at 'hmatrix'.
- Clark
On Monday,
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 23:19:38 -0400
Clark Gaebel cgae...@uwaterloo.ca wrote:
That's absolutely true. Wrappers around vector for your multidimensional
access is probably best, but Vectors of Vectors are usually easier.
But again, you're right. Multidimensional access is a pain. If it's a
24 matches
Mail list logo
