Neil Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just removed GHC 6.6.1 and installed 6.8.1, and I noticed something
rather unexpected. I recompiled an existing program (with -O2), and
instead of taking 30 seconds to compile, it took roughly 2 seconds.
In previous releases, certain constructs took
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Derek Elkins wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 15:51 -0800, Donn Cave wrote:
On Nov 12, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Galchin Vasili wrote:
I am looking for (objective.. i.e. not juts FPL cheerleading)
opinions as to why Wall Street ( http://www.janestcapital.com/) and
banking
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Jon Harrop wrote:
Penetration is highest in parts of industry where small groups of talented
programmers get together, most notably startups. Look at XenSource,
Wolfram Research, The MathWorks,
?? Mathematica and MatLab are just the opposite of statically safe
Henning Thielemann writes:
?? Mathematica and MatLab are just the opposite of statically safe
programming.
Is this a religious statement, quite popular in our Church of Functionalism,
or you mean something concrete by that, and if yes, then what?
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
Galchin Vasili wrote:
I am looking for (objective.. i.e. not juts FPL cheerleading) opinions as to
why Wall Street ( http://www.janestcapital.com/)
For Jane St Capital read the article by Yaron Minsky in issue 7
of the Monad Reader:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Daniel McAllansmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering if anyone had done work on tagging functions at the type
level
with their time or space complexity and, if it's even feasible, calculating
the complexity of compound functions.
Any pointers?
I have done
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 08:41, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Jon Harrop wrote:
Penetration is highest in parts of industry where small groups of
talented programmers get together, most notably startups. Look at
XenSource, Wolfram Research, The MathWorks,
??
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henning Thielemann writes:
?? Mathematica and MatLab are just the opposite of statically safe
programming.
Is this a religious statement, quite popular in our Church of Functionalism,
or you mean something concrete by that, and if yes, then
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Jon Harrop wrote:
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 08:41, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Jon Harrop wrote:
Penetration is highest in parts of industry where small groups of
talented programmers get together, most notably startups. Look at
XenSource,
Henning Thielemann writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henning Thielemann writes:
?? Mathematica and MatLab are just the opposite of statically safe
programming.
Is this a religious statement, quite popular in our Church of Functionalism,
or you mean something concrete by that, and if
Following Lennart Augustsson's improvements of the Haskell implementations of
my ray tracer language comparison:
http://augustss.blogspot.com/2007/11/benchmarking-ray-tracing-haskell-vs.html
I thought I'd share the performance improvements offered by Lennart's new code
with the latest release
Peter Hercek wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| Windows and Haskell is not a well travelled route, but if you
stray of
| the cuddly installer packages, it gets even worse.
|
| But it shouldn't. Really it shouldn't. Even though Windows is not my
| preferred platform, it is by no means
Hello jerzy,
Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 3:03:16 PM, you wrote:
Well, Henning, it is quite a statement: certainly not the appropriate tools
for reliable development and maintenance. Tell that to those legions of
people who made dozens of thousands of programs in Lisp (or Scheme), in
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henning Thielemann writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henning Thielemann writes:
?? Mathematica and MatLab are just the opposite of statically safe
programming.
Is this a religious statement, quite popular in our Church of
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Jon Harrop wrote:
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 08:41, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Jon Harrop wrote:
Penetration is highest in parts of industry where small groups of
talented programmers get together, most notably startups.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Bailey
Well, I answered my own question. Unlike UNIX, specifying a library
without the leading lib causes the library to not be found. Not sure
if that's a GHC linking problem or what. Changing the library
requirement
Laurent Deniau wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Jon Harrop wrote:
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 08:41, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Jon Harrop wrote:
Penetration is highest in parts of industry where small groups of
talented programmers get together,
Henning Thielemann writes:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, Henning, it is quite a statement: certainly not the appropriate
tools for reliable development and maintenance. Tell that to those
legions of people who made dozens of thousands of programs in Lisp (or
Scheme),
Jules Bean wrote:
Laurent Deniau wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Jon Harrop wrote:
the FFT routines in MATLAB (FFTW: written in OCaml) and the SML
software
that The MathWorks sell.
I see, but FFTW was not developed by MathWorks, but by Matteo Frigo and
Steven G.
| For technical reasons, GHCi can only support the *-form for modules
| which are interpreted, so compiled modules and package modules can
| only contribute their exports to the current scope. But it does mean
| the interpreter isn't referentially transparent, which is weird for a
| language that
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Meanwhile, though, the best we can do is improve the documentation:
Dan, can you suggest any words we could add to the
documentation that would have prevented you stumbling?
... or even better - words that GHCi can say, when it
On Nov 13, 2007 7:09 AM, Bayley, Alistair
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're using runghc, so I guess that must use ghci, or something
equivalent. You may find, now that you've changed the cabal entry to
libpq, that you can no longer build with ghc (the compiler). But my
memory of this is hazy.
When I start a windowed program (e.g. GLUT or GTK2Hs) from within GHCi, my
application's window does not become the foreground window.
Is this on purpose?
Thanks,
Peter
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On Nov 13, 2007 3:00 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan, can you suggest any words we could add to the
documentation that would have prevented you stumbling?
I guess the thing that would have helped best would have been an error
message like 'x' not in scope,
On Nov 13, 2007, at 13:32 , Dan Piponi wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007 3:00 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dan, can you suggest any words we could add to the
documentation that would have prevented you stumbling?
I guess the thing that would have helped best would
Functional programming languages are now much more widely used in industry,
primarily because they offer substantial productivity improvements (roughly
10x) over C++ and Java and, consequently, are much more cost effective.
Do you have any references for this?
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog
2007/11/13, Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| For technical reasons, GHCi can only support the *-form for modules
| which are interpreted, so compiled modules and package modules can
| only contribute their exports to the current scope. But it does mean
| the interpreter isn't
Hello,
I know there are several important differences between let-expressions
and where-clauses regarding scoping and the restriction of where to
a top-level definition. However, frequently I write code in which
either one would be allowed, and I was wondering if there were any
guidelines or
Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
When I start a windowed program (e.g. GLUT or GTK2Hs) from within GHCi,
my application’s window does not become the foreground window.
Is this on purpose?
This is just a guess, I do not really know :-)
Maybe your problem is focus stealing prevention, which is a
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 16:03, Laurent Deniau wrote:
OCaml was used to write a meta-program which applies heuristics to
minimize the runtime of the critical C code (i.e. the butterflies). This
has nothing to do with FFT computation
No. The sole purpose of the OCaml code is to symbolically
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 18:38, Tim Newsham wrote:
Functional programming languages are now much more widely used in
industry, primarily because they offer substantial productivity
improvements (roughly 10x) over C++ and Java and, consequently, are much
more cost effective.
Do you
On Nov 13, 2007 6:56 PM, John Lato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I know there are several important differences between let-expressions
and where-clauses regarding scoping and the restriction of where to
a top-level definition. However, frequently I write code in which
either one would be
Granted, I'm lazy. I read release notes only and only few first pages
to see what's new. Couldn't GHCI be improved to at least give some
hints?
it does!-) watch the prompt, which says '*M', if all of M's top-level
is in scope, or 'M', if only M's exports are in scope. check here:
Hello,
Is there anyway to get a .pdf version of
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/?
Kind regards, Vasili
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On Nov 13, 2007 10:56 AM, John Lato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know there are several important differences between let-expressions
and where-clauses regarding scoping and the restriction of where to
a top-level definition. However, frequently I write code in which
One place I find it useful
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, John Lato wrote:
Hello,
I know there are several important differences between let-expressions
and where-clauses regarding scoping and the restriction of where to
a top-level definition. However, frequently I write code in which
either one would be allowed, and I was
Hi
Is there anyway to get a .pdf version of
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/?
Yes, you could print it to PDF using something like acrobat distiller.
Otherwise you could modify haddock to generate Latex markup and
compile that.
My question is why you would want
Hi
This depends on whether you are an expression style or declaration
style programmer.
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Declaration_vs._expression_style
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Let_vs._Where
Reading the let vs where page I'm left with the strong impression that
I should use
I'd like to thank Henning for pointing out the wiki page, which
describes one consequence I hadn't considered. I knew I couldn't have
been the first person to have this question, but I somehow missed it
before. I agree with Neil, though, that it doesn't seem very neutral.
On Nov 13, 2007 1:58
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, John Lato wrote:
I'd like to thank Henning for pointing out the wiki page, which
describes one consequence I hadn't considered. I knew I couldn't have
been the first person to have this question, but I somehow missed it
before. I agree with Neil, though, that it
Hi
Maybe it would be enough to represent the example where problem more
fairly on its own terms. The non-working example has us writing
f = State $ \ x - y
where y = ... x ...
I just don't think this example is representative of the typical
decisions in the trade-off. There are
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 13:08 -0800, Donn Cave wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Neil Mitchell wrote:
This depends on whether you are an expression style or declaration
style programmer.
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Declaration_vs._expression_style
I tend to prefer where, but I think that guards function declarations are
more readable than giant if-thens and case constructs.
where can scope over multiple guards, and guards can access things
declared in a where clause, both of which are important features:
f xs | len 2 = y
| len ==
On Nov 13, 2007 1:24 PM, Ryan Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tend to prefer where, but I think that guards function declarations are
more readable than giant if-thens and case constructs.
Up until yesterday I had presumed that guards only applied to
functions. But I was poking about in the
I've been working on a program over the last few days to evolve
cellular automata rules using a genetic algorithm. Luckily, this email
has nothing to do with CAs but everything to do with Haskell
performance.
For those who don't know, a CA is represented as a row of cells, where
each can be
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 11:41:20AM -0800, Justin Bailey wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007 10:56 AM, John Lato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know there are several important differences between let-expressions
and where-clauses regarding scoping and the restriction of where to
a top-level definition.
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| For technical reasons, GHCi can only support the *-form for modules
| which are interpreted, so compiled modules and package modules can
| only contribute their exports to the current scope. But it does mean
| the interpreter isn't referentially transparent, which is
One observation is that you're doing a lot of redundant Bool - Int
conversion.
As you iterate across the array in fillArray, the rule you are using for the
next cell is almost entirely determined by the rule you are using for the
current cell; lop off the top bit, shift left by one, and add the
On 11/13/07, Ryan Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, what stops getRule from going off the end of the array? I didn't
see anything that prevented that in the code, and you're using unsafeAt,
which seems like a potential bug.
Never mind, I realized this is a ring buffer with `mod` s.
I wonder, is there an equivalent of the 'type' keyword for
constructors? An example:
-- create a pseudo-C pointer type
-- which can point to a value or a
-- null.
type Pointer a = Maybe a
-- int a = 3;
-- int *pa = a;
ampersand :: t - Pointer t
ampersand a = Just a
-- int b = *pa.
star ::
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Dougal Stanton wrote:
-- int a = 3;
-- int *pa = a;
ampersand :: t - Pointer t
ampersand a = Just a
What's bad about using 'ampersand' function as replacement for the
constructor 'Just'?
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
On Nov 13, 2007 2:21 PM, Ryan Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Never mind, I realized this is a ring buffer with `mod` s. That's another
slow operation when you're doing code as tight as this. If you can
guarantee the ring is a power of 2 in size you can use a mask instead, or
use my
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 02:45:33PM -0800, Justin Bailey wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007 2:21 PM, Ryan Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Never mind, I realized this is a ring buffer with `mod` s. That's another
slow operation when you're doing code as tight as this. If you can
guarantee the ring is
Sure, if the ring size is a power of two, and a is greater than or equal
to 0, then
a `mod` ringSize == a .. (ringSize - 1)
that is:
a `mod` 8 == a .. 7
a `mod` 256 == a .. 255
etc.
On 11/13/07, Justin Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007 2:21 PM, Ryan Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 13/11/2007, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Dougal Stanton wrote:
-- int a = 3;
-- int *pa = a;
ampersand :: t - Pointer t
ampersand a = Just a
What's bad about using 'ampersand' function as replacement for the
constructor 'Just'?
I also wanted
On Nov 13, 2007 2:49 PM, Stefan O'Rear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
About how wide are your rules usually?
7 bits (3 neighbors on each side plus the current cell).
Justin
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 11:44:30PM +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Dougal Stanton wrote:
-- int a = 3;
-- int *pa = a;
ampersand :: t - Pointer t
ampersand a = Just a
What's bad about using 'ampersand' function as replacement for the
constructor 'Just'?
It
I implement bit shifting to get the next rule, as you suggested, and
that cut my run time by 75%. It went from 200 seconds to do 100 rules
on 100 CAs to 50 seconds. Amazing.
Justin
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Dougal Stanton wrote:
On 13/11/2007, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Dougal Stanton wrote:
-- int a = 3;
-- int *pa = a;
ampersand :: t - Pointer t
ampersand a = Just a
What's bad about using 'ampersand' function as
Dan Piponi wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007 1:24 PM, Ryan Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tend to prefer where, but I think that guards function declarations are
more readable than giant if-thens and case constructs.
Up until yesterday I had presumed that guards only applied to
functions. But I
Trying out some of the great language shootout programs with ghc 6.8 is
producing nice results. For example, our classic cache-hammering,
bitwise sieve benchmark is out of the box 10% faster with the new
compiler. The (already rather good) benchmark is here (the
same speed as the OCaml version
On 2007-11-13, Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| For technical reasons, GHCi can only support the *-form for modules
| which are interpreted, so compiled modules and package modules can
| only contribute their exports to the current scope. But it does mean
| the
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:51:13 -0800
Dan Piponi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Up until yesterday I had presumed that guards only applied to
functions. But I was poking about in the Random module and discovered
that you can write things like
a | x 1 = 1
| x -1 = -1
| otherwise = x
where
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But... tell me please, ANYONE, who takes part in this inspiring exchange:
How many COBOL programs have you written in your life?
How many programs in Cobol have you actually SEEN?
Shudder. In '86, I had to modify a COBOL code generator, *written in
COBOL*. The
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 14:21 -0800, Ryan Ingram wrote:
On 11/13/07, Ryan Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, what stops getRule from going off the end of the array?
I didn't see anything that prevented that in the code, and
you're using unsafeAt, which seems like a
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 13:51 -0800, Dan Piponi wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007 1:24 PM, Ryan Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tend to prefer where, but I think that guards function declarations are
more readable than giant if-thens and case constructs.
Up until yesterday I had presumed that guards
Thanks, Vasya
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Aaron Denney wrote:
On 2007-11-13, Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| For technical reasons, GHCi can only support the *-form for modules
| which are interpreted, so compiled modules and package modules can
| only contribute their exports to the current scope. But
On 13 Nov 2007, at 11:03 PM, Jules Bean wrote:
Just to be clear: my proposal is that if you want it to go faster
you do
ghci foo.hi
or
ghci foo.o
... so you still have the option to run on compiled code.
My suggestion is simply that ghci foo.hs is an instruction to
load source code
69 matches
Mail list logo
