3 ms·

> Yes, you can write high-performance Haskell but it requires expertise or huge amount of profiling and time. Is there a language X that allows you to write hi

> Yes, you can write high-performance Haskell but it requires expertise or huge amount of profiling and time. Is there a language X that allows you to write high performance X without huge amounts of profiling and time? > On the other hand, you can easily write faster (speed-wise) prototypes in C++ and get superior performance almost all the time. You can't really compare development time though can you, even with C++x11? Even if so, you should probably specify the version of C++ you are referring to since they can mean very different experiences. > List of ways to write performant Haskell: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10209798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10209798 Cool!

spooningtamarin 11y ago
> Is there a language X that allows you to write high performance X without huge amounts of profiling and time? Yeah, if high-performance is something faster than Haskell I'm already there with C++. If I understand copy/move semantics I won't get bitten by anyone, same thing with laziness in Haskell, although sometimes I stumble a bit. Of course we're all talking about C++14. I guess everyone else is talking about GHC 8.+, at least in this thread. > You can't really compare development time though can you, even with C++x11? Even if so, you should probably specify the version of C++ you are referring to since they can mean very different experiences. Write a highly performant discrete optimization in Haskell using monad transformers that have overhead, laziness that has overhead, and almost everything has several levels of indirection. Yes, I can write a prototype that is sufficiently fast, I can then profile and write a version that Haskell might never reach. And yes, it'll probably take me less time to do than to do the same with Haskell, it might be my lack of expertise, who knows, I've tried.

spooningtamarin 11y ago

> Is there a language X that allows you to write high performance X without huge amounts of profiling and time? Yeah, if high-performance is something faster than Haskell I'm already there with C++. If I understand copy/move semantics I won't get bitten by anyone, same thing with laziness in Haskell, although sometimes I stumble a bit. Of course we're all talking about C++14. I guess everyone else is talking about GHC 8.+, at least in this thread. > You can't really compare development time though can you, even with C++x11? Even if so, you should probably specify the version of C++ you are referring to since they can mean very different experiences. Write a highly performant discrete optimization in Haskell using monad transformers that have overhead, laziness that has overhead, and almost everything has several levels of indirection. Yes, I can write a prototype that is sufficiently fast, I can then profile and write a version that Haskell might never reach. And yes, it'll probably take me less time to do than to do the same with Haskell, it might be my lack of expertise, who knows, I've tried.