G'day all.
Quoting Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The Haskell ray tracer seems to be a pretty standard and widely-used
example program. But has anybody ever seriously tried to make a
production-grade implementation? (I.e., one that is user-friendly,
efficient, and with lots of
TC dmin p = do
TC mv - dmin' p
TC case mv of
TC Nothing - error dmin: no values
TC Just (v,_) - return v
TC dmin' p = do
TC t - readTVar p
TC case t of
TC Empty - return Nothing
TC Trie l m r - do
TC mv - dmin' l
TC case mv
ACP Daily traffic on the whole of the Usenet takes up a few
ACP terabytes, and you presumably want to store more than one day
ACP worth of Usenet traffic. You also need to keep in sync with the
ACP other Usenet servers, as you are not the sole provider of
ACP content.
NNTP server are not
DL Ah! So here's another quick question: if mzero is the identity
DL element, why isn't it part of the Monad class? Correct me if I'm
DL wrong but aren't Monads (in the mathematical sense) required an
DL identity element by definition?
Yes, they do. And this identity element is called return in
SOR I've heard that Monads are in some way like Monoids, hence the
SOR name. But I don't understand the explanation yet myself :(
Just compare:
Monoid: a set M with maps ident: M^0 - M and product: M^2 - M
(here M^0 is a one-element set)
Monad: a functor M with natural transformations return:
Donald:
Yeah, there's some known low level issues in the code generator
regarding heap and stack checks inside loops, and the use of registers
on x86.
But note this updated paper,
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/CLPKM07.html
Add another core to your machine and it is no longer 4x
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 11:24:36AM +0800, Michael T. Richter wrote:
I've seen this pattern so often in communities. I've also seen it in
management (the supervisor/manager who can do the job better than his
underlings -- so he does) or in teaching (the popular teacher gets a
heavier
bf3:
Donald:
Yeah, there's some known low level issues in the code generator
regarding heap and stack checks inside loops, and the use of registers
on x86.
But note this updated paper,
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/CLPKM07.html
Add another core to your machine and it is no
Ian Lynagh wrote:
If you publish something under licence A, you still remain the copyright
holder, and can later also publish it under licence B. You can also
publish it combined with other material under licence B.
For example, if you were to write a couple of pages on type systems to
the
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 07:05:53PM +1000, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
So how would you think we can approve? We have to help in more specific
ways, and listen more carefully to what people are asking?
I usually do this when I want a newcomer to join my community (for
instance my research
Sebastian,
Why would I write a slow, complicated algorithm in C#?
I'm not making these comparisons for some academic paper, I'm trying to get
a feel for how the languages run in practice.
And really in practice, I'm never going to write a prime algorithm using
merge and so on, I'd just use the
hughperkins:
Sebastian,
Why would I write a slow, complicated algorithm in C#?
I'm not making these comparisons for some academic paper,
I'm trying to get a feel for how the languages run in
practice.
And really in practice, I'm never going to write a prime
algorithm
Hey, guys, I just realized this test is not really fair!
I've been using the Microsoft .Net compiler ,which is a proprietary
closed-source compiler.
To be fair to Haskell, we should probably compare it to other open source
products, such as g++ and mono?
Here are the timings ;-)
Haskell
On 15/07/07, Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sebastian,
Why would I write a slow, complicated algorithm in C#?
I'm not making these comparisons for some academic paper, I'm trying to get
a feel for how the languages run in practice.
And really in practice, I'm never going to write a
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[me thinks he doth protest too much] ;-)
The rules of the competition are quite fair: both sides make an optimal
algorithm using their preferred language. It's ok to hardcode the first 3
or 4 primes if you must, hardcoding the entire
On 15/07/07, Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[me thinks he doth protest too much] ;-)
The rules of the competition are quite fair: both sides make an optimal
algorithm using their preferred language. It's ok to hardcode the first 3
or
hughperkins:
Hey, guys, I just realized this test is not really fair!
I've been using the Microsoft .Net compiler ,which is a
proprietary closed-source compiler.
To be fair to Haskell, we should probably compare it to
other open source products, such as g++ and mono?
Here
Hello,
After a bit of hacking, and much documenting, I'm pleased to announce a
preliminary release of a delimited continuation library for Haskell.
The implementation is drawn from A Monadic Framework for Delimited
Continuations[1] by Dybvig, Petyon Jones and Sabry, although it has some
On 7/15/07, Donald Bruce Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip] unsafeWrite[snip]
[snip]unsafeRead[snip]
Hi Donald, the idea is to use this for operational code, so avoiding unsafe
operations is preferable ;-) You'll note that the C# version is not using
unsafe operations, although to be
hughperkins:
On 7/15/07, Donald Bruce Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[snip] unsafeWrite[snip]
[snip]unsafeRead[snip]
Hi Donald, the idea is to use this for operational code, so
avoiding unsafe operations is preferable ;-) You'll note
that the C# version is not
On 15/07/07, Donald Bruce Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hughperkins:
On 7/15/07, Donald Bruce Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[snip] unsafeWrite[snip]
[snip]unsafeRead[snip]
Hi Donald, the idea is to use this for operational code, so
avoiding unsafe operations is
This is intended as an illustration of how one might use the CC-delcont
library, and/or what it might be good for at all. For more, a mailing
list search for 'oleg' would likely be fruitful, as this library is
heavily derived from the delimited continuation implementation he's
used in past mails.
On 7/15/07, Donald Bruce Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What C# version are you using, by the way? (So I can check if it does
any tricks).
- csc is in the Microsoft.Net Framework 2.0 runtime, which you can download
from microsoft.com (free download).
- gmcs/mono are from Mono 1.2.2.1 ,
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unsafe' here just means direct array indexing. Same as the other
languages. Haskell's 'unsafe' is a little more paranoid that other
languages.
Yes, I was kindof hoping it was something like that. Cool :-)
Since the goal is to flip
On 7/15/07, Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unsafe' here just means direct array indexing. Same as the other
languages. Haskell's 'unsafe' is a little more paranoid that other
languages.
Yes, I was kindof hoping it was
On 15/07/07, Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/15/07, Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unsafe' here just means direct array indexing. Same as the other
languages. Haskell's 'unsafe' is a little more paranoid that other
On 7/15/07, Miguel Mitrofanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[nice solution deleted]
Shiny.
Everyone's suggestions show that in order to advance to a level 3
Haskell Mage[*], I need to spend a chunk of time learning to grok
monad transformers.
Thanks for the suggestions. If anyone cares I can
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, *I* didn't say it but yes. Unsafe disables bounds checking
(which in this case is safe). I think you can just stick an unsafe{}
in the C# version to disable them.
Oh well that's not good. Yes, you can use unsafe in C# too, but you
Hey, I just realized I can shave off another 30% in C# ;-)
So now the timings become:
Safe Haskell
=
J:\dev\haskellghc -O2 -o primechaddai.exe PrimeChaddai.hs
J:\dev\haskellprimechaddai
number of primes: 664579
Elapsed time: 26.234
Unsafe Haskell
===
J:\dev\haskellghc
On 15/07/07, Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey, I just realized I can shave off another 30% in C# ;-)
So now the timings become:
Safe Haskell
=
J:\dev\haskellghc -O2 -o primechaddai.exe PrimeChaddai.hs
J:\dev\haskellprimechaddai
number of primes: 664579
Elapsed time: 26.234
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see what the point of this is? Why do timings of different
algorithms? Of course you could do the same optimization in any
language, so why do you think it's relevant to change the algorithm in
*one* of the languages and then make
On 15/07/07, Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see what the point of this is? Why do timings of different
algorithms? Of course you could do the same optimization in any
language, so why do you think it's relevant to change the
hughperkins:
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't see what the point of this is? Why do timings of
different
algorithms? Of course you could do the same optimization
in any
language, so why do you think it's relevant to change the
On 15/07/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/07/07, Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see what the point of this is? Why do timings of different
algorithms? Of course you could do the same optimization in any
On 7/15/07, Donald Bruce Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this case it is fine. You're setting bits in the cache. Please use the
same algorithm, or any conclusions are meaningless.
No, I'm counting prime numbers. Somewhat faster it seems ;-)
Let's put this into the real world a moment.
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My GHC compiler is broken, I only have GHCi, but this is about twice
for me as fast as the previous version you benchmarked, btw.
Hi Sebastian,
Here are the results:
Haskell (Safe Haskell right?)
==
J:\dev\haskellghc -fglasgow-exts
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Argh, no way can a Microsoft language be better than Haskell]
Well, if you scan higher in the thread, there are two benchmarks. The prime
numbers benchmark was a simple 10 minute benchmark to compare the
computational speed (something
On 15/07/07, Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Argh, no way can a Microsoft language be better than Haskell]
Well, if you scan higher in the thread, there are two benchmarks. The prime
numbers benchmark was a simple 10 minute
hughperkins:
Hey, I just realized I can shave off another 30% in C# ;-)
So now the timings become:
Ok. So do the same thing to the Haskell program. The compilers should
produce pretty much identical assembly.
{-# OPTIONS -O2 -optc-O -fbang-patterns #-}
import Control.Monad.ST
On 15/07/07, Donald Bruce Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hughperkins:
Hey, I just realized I can shave off another 30% in C# ;-)
So now the timings become:
Ok. So do the same thing to the Haskell program. The compilers should
produce pretty much identical assembly.
{-# OPTIONS
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely you can remove the read here, and just always do the write?
Ah you'd think so, but if it's anything like the C# version, strangely that
would be slower. In his last message Don explains that this is because the
write dirties the
On 15/07/07, Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely you can remove the read here, and just always do the write?
Ah you'd think so, but if it's anything like the C# version, strangely that
would be slower. In his last message Don
dons:
hughperkins:
Hey, I just realized I can shave off another 30% in C# ;-)
So now the timings become:
Ok. So do the same thing to the Haskell program. The compilers should
produce pretty much identical assembly.
Oh, and I forgot you count up by two now. Here's the Haskell
dons:
dons:
hughperkins:
Hey, I just realized I can shave off another 30% in C# ;-)
So now the timings become:
Ok. So do the same thing to the Haskell program. The compilers should
produce pretty much identical assembly.
Oh, and I forgot you count up by two now.
On 15/07/07, Donald Bruce Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dons:
dons:
hughperkins:
Hey, I just realized I can shave off another 30% in C# ;-)
So now the timings become:
Ok. So do the same thing to the Haskell program. The compilers should
produce pretty much identical
On 15/07/07, Donald Bruce Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh! Much faster. Looks like Haskell is 100x faster than C#.
Who gets fired? :)
Well, you've switched back to using unsafe operations there, Donald ;-)
Anyway, before you guys get too narked at me ;-) I'd just like to say that
I'm
Hello Chaddai,
Sunday, July 15, 2007, 3:31:12 AM, you wrote:
Due to the nature of Haskell, it's not so easy to do the same thing
(write a C program in Haskell as you wrote a C program in C#), so the
conclusion is obviously to Haskell disadvantage.
it's possible to directly rewrite C code in
On Jul 15, 2007, at 7:53 , Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Still, I think youre methodology sucks. If you want to compare
languages you should implement the same algorithm. (...)
If this is about comparing languages, you should compare them fairly.
But is it comparing them fairly if you use an
On Jul 15, 2007, at 8:45 , Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
main = print $( let x = pureSieve 1000 in [| x |] )
I'm reminded of the C++ expert in CMU SCS who used to amuse himself
by making template expansion do all the real work at compile time.
(Yes, including a prime sieve.)
--
On Sun, 2007-15-07 at 10:56 +0200, Andrea Rossato wrote:
I've seen this pattern so often in communities.
I may be wrong, but I think you do not get the specificity of the
Haskell community, that is quite peculiar, I'd say.
I think you're wrong. ;) The specifics of motivation and style
On Jul 15, 2007, at 0:47 , Jonathan Cast wrote:
Usenet is a giant network of NNTP servers (and UUCP servers before
that...)
that ISPs (and various Unix sites before that) maintained at one
time (most
seem to have given up on it now), with thousands of general-purpose
newsgroups that at one
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:15:03 +0200, you wrote:
...a simple 10 minute benchmark to compare the computational speed...
We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time:
premature optimization is the root of all evil.
- Donald Knuth (paraphrasing Tony Hoare)
Haskell is about
Andrea Rossato wrote:
I may be wrong, but I think you do not get the specificity of the
Haskell community, that is quite peculiar, I'd say.
Interesting.
I've just read your message three times, and you argue eloquently, and
coherently. But I feel a bit of a disconnection. I don't recognise
Brandon wrote:
Seems to me you get the best picture by picking two algorithms, one
which favors C# and one which favors Haskell, and implementing both
in both languages.
Sounds good to me. What is a good problem that favors Haskell?
___
Steve Schafer wrote:
basically everything I write programs for is mainly about I/O...
It's funny how people always seem to think that, but if you look at what
they're really doing, I/O is usually the least of their worries.
Programming GUIs is about the only reasonably common I/O-related
Derek Elkins wrote:
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 21:25 -0400, Steve Schafer wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:21:50 +0100, you wrote:
[quoting a generic attitude]
basically everything I write programs for is mainly about I/O...
It's funny how people always seem to think that, but if you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all.
Quoting Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The Haskell ray tracer seems to be a pretty standard and widely-used
example program. But has anybody ever seriously tried to make a
production-grade implementation? (I.e., one that is user-friendly,
efficient,
hughperkins:
Brandon wrote:
Seems to me you get the best picture by picking two
algorithms, one
which favors C# and one which favors Haskell, and
implementing both
in both languages.
Sounds good to me. What is a good problem that favors
Haskell?
NO. We just
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
bf3:
Maybe this is yet another newbie stupid question, but do you mean that
GHC does automatic multi-threading? (Haskell seems very suitable for
that) Otherwise adding an extra core does not really help does it?
No, though that would be nice! You do have to
Hallo,
On 7/14/07, Michael T. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While it is understandable, given the intense interest most grognards of any language
have in playing with the language, for people to enjoy conversations that go into the
ever-more-esoteric, it is decidedly not helpful to the
andrewcoppin:
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
bf3:
Maybe this is yet another newbie stupid question, but do you mean that
GHC does automatic multi-threading? (Haskell seems very suitable for
that) Otherwise adding an extra core does not really help does it?
No, though that would be nice!
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
andrewcoppin:
I read somewhere that GHC's SMP support has been tested up to 40 cores.
Pray tell me, what the heck kind of machine has 40 cores? (And where can
I buy mine from?? :-D LOL!)
40 cpus.
It's a midrange Sun Fire server, something like this one
On 7/15/07, Donald Bruce Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, if you're keen, and agreeing to implement the same algorithm on
both systems,
Sorry, the rule is you use what's available in your chosen language,
otherwise I have to restrict myself only to use things available in Haskell,
Hello Donald,
Sunday, July 15, 2007, 8:22:33 PM, you wrote:
usually 2-4x slower. Really poor at lightweight concurrency.
both systems, I'd have a go in C# at 'chameneos', a concurrency
benchmark,
shootout contains only two or three tests that compare quality of code
generated by compiler
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Andrew Coppin wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all.
Quoting Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The Haskell ray tracer seems to be a pretty standard and widely-used
example program. But has anybody ever seriously tried to make a
production-grade
This is a bit tangental, but... One problem I sometimes have is not
knowing the status of things. E.g., you read about Associated Types, and
then you go hey, is this implemented now? is it being implemented soon?
etc.
(Don't all rush in and tell me about ATs - I'm only picking it as an
Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Andrew Coppin wrote:
By production grade I don't mean you can put Pixar to shame, I just mean
it's not an experimental research project - it's something designed to
actually be used by normal users.
Or to put it another way, that the
Does this mean if I turn up, I can meet random Haskellers?
no, you will meet undefined Haskeller because randomness is impure
concept
Assuming that haskellers are all pure may be a bad idea...
...and who says Haskell nerds don't have humour? :^)
On 7/15/07, Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd have a go in C# at 'chameneos', a concurrency
benchmark,
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=chameneoslang=all
Errr this is kindof a strange problem, the answer is always N * 2?
And there we see why I dislike
On 15/07/07, Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/15/07, Donald Bruce Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, if you're keen, and agreeing to implement the same algorithm on
both systems,
Sorry, the rule is you use what's available in your chosen language,
otherwise I have to restrict
Just for laughs, here's my solution to Chameneos.
J:\dev\haskellcsc /nologo Chameneos2.cs
J:\dev\haskellchameneos2
200
elapsed time: 0
Compares quite favorably to the Haskell solution:
J:\dev\haskellghc -fglasgow-exts -O2 -o Chameneos.exe Chameneos.hs
J:\dev\haskellchameneos
200
number
Oh wait, hmmm, might have misread the question :-D
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On 15/07/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Andrew Coppin wrote:
By production grade I don't mean you can put Pixar to shame, I just mean
it's not an experimental research project - it's something designed to
actually be used by normal
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 17:49 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
This is a bit tangental, but... One problem I sometimes have is not
knowing the status of things. E.g., you read about Associated Types, and
then you go hey, is this implemented now? is it being implemented soon?
etc.
(Don't all
Derek Elkins wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 17:49 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
This is a bit tangental, but... One problem I sometimes have is not
knowing the status of things. E.g., you read about Associated Types, and
then you go hey, is this implemented now? is it being implemented soon?
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 17:11 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Derek Elkins wrote:
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 21:25 -0400, Steve Schafer wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:21:50 +0100, you wrote:
[quoting a generic attitude]
basically everything I write programs for is mainly about I/O...
On Sunday 15 July 2007 11:19:29 Hugh Perkins wrote:
Not only does mono come close to the Microsoft .Net time, both mono and
Microsoft .Net are faster than g++ ;-) and whack Haskell.
This should tell you that your C++ is not very good. This is several times
faster, for example:
#include
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 18:47 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Derek Elkins wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 17:49 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
This is a bit tangental, but... One problem I sometimes have is not
knowing the status of things. E.g., you read about Associated Types, and
then you
On 7/15/07, Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/15/07, Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd have a go in C# at 'chameneos', a concurrency
benchmark,
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=chameneoslang=all
Errr this is kindof a strange problem,
On 7/15/07, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This should tell you that your C++ is not very good. This is several times
faster, for example:
For some reason you were using C-style allocation rather than the C++ STL
to
implement a bit vector. The STL implementation is optimized.
Yes good
Add another core to your machine and it is no longer 4x slower :)
Add 15 more cores and its really no longer 4x slower :
Maybe this is yet another newbie stupid question, but do you mean that
GHC does automatic multi-threading? (Haskell seems very suitable for
No, though that would be nice!
Derek Elkins wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 17:11 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
I'm still really really fuzzy on why this exists...
What?
xmonad.
The reason I pointed it out is that it (a window manager) is something
one usually thinks of as being nothing but IO, yet this is not at
Derek Elkins wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 18:47 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
I could have sworn I heard somewhere that the debugger would be in GHC
6.6.1... but, apparently, I am mistaken. I have no idea which version it
*is* going to be in... (Presumably the next one.)
On the very
On Jul 15, 2007, at 14:23 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
More... featureful...?
It's a minimalistic WM. It even says so on the tin. Either it's
minimal or it isn't...
minimalistic != minimal
The disconnect here is that most people don't want a *truly* minimal
WM. They want one which stays out
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought the point wasn't to compare programmer's creativity, but to
compare languages?
Sebastian, you cant directly compare languages, you can only compare the
results of a pairing between developers and those languages. There's no
On 7/15/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I have pointed out that somebody once wrote a Quake clone in
Haskell
Really? Do you have a link? This would be quite hard to do, so I'm going
to assume that someone who took the effort to do this would make an effort
to publicize
On Jul 15, 2007, at 14:34 , Hugh Perkins wrote:
On 7/15/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I have pointed out that somebody once wrote a Quake clone in
Haskell
Really? Do you have a link? This would be quite hard to do, so
I'm going to assume that someone who took the
Had an idea: a real shootout game for Haskell.
The way it would work is:
- you email a haskell program to a specific address
- it shows up on a web-page
The webpage shows the last submitted solution for each person
- anyone can select two solutions and click Fight
- the scripts fight in an
On 7/15/07, Miguel Mitrofanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SOR I've heard that Monads are in some way like Monoids, hence the
SOR name. But I don't understand the explanation yet myself :(
Just compare:
Monoid: a set M with maps ident: M^0 - M and product: M^2 - M
(here M^0 is a one-element set)
See the following link for a purely functional and straight-forward
implementation of SHA1. Disclaimer: Please be kind to me, I haven't
done much Haskell (yet). And I know nothing about SHA1 except its
specification.
http://hpaste.org/1695#a2
It performs better than the SHA1 algorithm
On 15/07/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess because in most normal programming languages you can do I/O
anywhere you damn like, it doesn't occur to most programmers that it's
possible to make a seperation. (Most seem to realise that, e.g., mixing
business logic with GUI code is a
This is a bit tangental, but... One problem I sometimes have is not
knowing the status of things. E.g., you read about Associated Types, and
then you go hey, is this implemented now? is it being implemented soon?
etc.
(Don't all rush in and tell me about ATs - I'm only picking it as an
Everyone's suggestions show that in order to advance to a level 3
Haskell Mage[*], I need to spend a chunk of time learning to grok
monad transformers.
let's see whether we can get from the initial version to the suggested
final version without any magic, in a somewhat long sequence of
minor
On Sunday 15 July 2007, Paul Moore wrote:
On 15/07/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess because in most normal programming languages you can do I/O
anywhere you damn like, it doesn't occur to most programmers that it's
possible to make a seperation. (Most seem to realise that,
On 15/07/07, Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought the point wasn't to compare programmer's creativity, but to
compare languages?
Sebastian, you cant directly compare languages, you can only compare the
results of a pairing
Malte Milatz malte at gmx-topmail.de writes:
See the following link for a purely functional and straight-forward
implementation of SHA1. Disclaimer: Please be kind to me, I haven't
done much Haskell (yet). And I know nothing about SHA1 except its
specification.
On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Sebastian,
There are literally thousands of problems at http://topcoder.com. I'm
totally fine with using any of these as a benchmark.
Can you find one that shows off the strengths of Haskell?
You don't think that multiple agents
On 7/15/07, Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Had an idea: a real shootout game for Haskell.
The way it would work is:
- you email a haskell program to a specific address
- it shows up on a web-page
The webpage shows the last submitted solution for each person
- anyone can select two
Dominic Steinitz:
Malte Milatz:
http://hpaste.org/1695#a2
It performs better than the SHA1 algorithm in Crypto: It is faster by a
factor of approximately e. It is also competitive (regarding time)
with the »unsafe« SHA1 implementation posted here some days ago,
Great. Can you
On 7/15/07, Donald Bruce Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
or maybe 'pidigits', a lazy pi generator,
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=pidigitslang=ghcid=0
This is I/O bound, which isnt interesting, unless you really want to
benchmark I/O to console?
We can improve
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
