On 30/11/2008, at 11:36, Don Stewart wrote:
Should mutable arrays have list-like APIs? All the usual operations,
just in-place and destructive where appropriate?
I don't know. To be honest, I don't think that the term mutable
array describes a single data structure. For instance, one of the
Should mutable arrays have list-like APIs? All the usual operations,
just in-place and destructive where appropriate?
I don't know. To be honest, I don't think that the term mutable
array describes a single data structure. For instance, one of the
central questions which unveils a whole
On Sunday 30 November 2008 6:28:29 am Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
On 30/11/2008, at 11:36, Don Stewart wrote:
Should mutable arrays have list-like APIs? All the usual operations,
just in-place and destructive where appropriate?
I don't know. To be honest, I don't think that the term mutable
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
But I don't want Perl, I want a well designed language and well
designed libraries.
I think it's find to let libraries proliferate, but at some point you
also need to step back and abstract.
I agree.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 29/11/2008, at 11:49, Claus Reinke wrote:
Yes, it is very difficult. A sensible API for a standard array
library is something that needs more research. FWIW, I don't know
of any other language that has what I'd like to see in Haskell. C+
+ probably comes closest but they have it easy
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 22:20 +, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
But I don't want Perl, I want a well designed language and well
designed libraries.
I think it's find to let libraries proliferate, but at some point you
also need to step back and abstract.
Yes, let the ideas simmer and when we can
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:00:38 -0500, Roman Leshchinskiy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 29/11/2008, at 10:47, Claus Reinke wrote:
[...]
And would it be difficult for you all to agree on a standard API, to
make switching between the alternatives easy (if
it is indeed impossible to unify their
John Lato wrote:
I would love to see a perfect, unified array library in Haskell. I
think everyone would. However, the problem Don, Roman, and others
have raised is that there is no single consensus on what that library
would look like, or how it would be implemented. It might be
impossible
andrewcoppin:
My view would be to let the free market of developers decide what is
best. No bottlenecks -- there's too many Haskell libraries already (~1000
now).
And this approach has yielded more code than ever before, more libraries
than ever before, and library authors are competing.
Austin Seipp wrote:
Excerpts from Andrew Coppin's message of Sat Nov 29 03:37:58 -0600 2008:
Are you seriously asserting that it's bad for people to stop and think
about their designs before building?
To be fair, I don't think you're in a position to say whether the
authors of these
andrewcoppin:
Austin Seipp wrote:
Excerpts from Andrew Coppin's message of Sat Nov 29 03:37:58 -0600 2008:
Are you seriously asserting that it's bad for people to stop and think
about their designs before building?
To be fair, I don't think you're in a position to say whether the
Henning Thielemann wrote:
I suspect that this particular function is less useful than you think.
It safes one allocation and might be faster since it uses less cache,
but on the other hand, it cannot be fused.
If the array is seriously large, you don't want to have five or six
versions of it
On 30/11/2008, at 02:43, Brad Larsen wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:00:38 -0500, Roman Leshchinskiy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 29/11/2008, at 10:47, Claus Reinke wrote:
[...]
And would it be difficult for you all to agree on a standard API, to
make switching between the alternatives easy
On 30/11/2008, at 08:32, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
I suspect that this particular function is less useful than you
think.
It safes one allocation and might be faster since it uses less cache,
but on the other hand, it cannot be fused.
Hmm, I haven't seen your original
rl:
On 30/11/2008, at 08:32, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
I suspect that this particular function is less useful than you
think.
It safes one allocation and might be faster since it uses less cache,
but on the other hand, it cannot be fused.
Hmm, I haven't seen your
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Simon Marlow wrote:
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Claus Reinke:
What do those folks working on parallel Haskell arrays think about the
sequential Haskell array baseline performance?
You won't like the answer. We are not happy with the
andrewcoppin:
What *I* propose is that somebody [you see what I did there?] should sit
down, take stock of all the multitudes of array libraries, what features
they have, what obvious features they're missing, and think up a good
API from scratch. Once we figure out what the best way to
But I don't want Perl, I want a well designed language and well
designed libraries.
I think it's find to let libraries proliferate, but at some point you
also need to step back and abstract.
-- Lennart
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
andrewcoppin:
What
But I don't want Perl, I want a well designed language and well
designed libraries.
I think it's find to let libraries proliferate, but at some point you
also need to step back and abstract.
-- Lennart
Especially so if the free marketeers claim there is something
fundamentally wrong with the
On 29/11/2008, at 08:43, Andrew Coppin wrote:
What *I* propose is that somebody [you see what I did there?] should
sit down, take stock of all the multitudes of array libraries, what
features they have, what obvious features they're missing, and think
up a good API from scratch. Once we
claus.reinke:
But I don't want Perl, I want a well designed language and well
designed libraries.
I think it's find to let libraries proliferate, but at some point you
also need to step back and abstract.
-- Lennart
Especially so if the free marketeers claim there is something
On 29/11/2008, at 10:47, Claus Reinke wrote:
But I don't want Perl, I want a well designed language and well
designed libraries.
I think it's find to let libraries proliferate, but at some point you
also need to step back and abstract.
-- Lennart
Especially so if the free marketeers claim
Yes, it is very difficult. A sensible API for a standard array library
is something that needs more research. FWIW, I don't know of any other
language that has what I'd like to see in Haskell. C++ probably comes
closest but they have it easy - they don't do fusion.
I assume you've looked
23 matches
Mail list logo
