3 ms·
Read it. Honestly the paper is mostly a critique of functional programmers resting on their laurels for too long. "Hey guys, our tail-recursive fib is just as
by swannodette 17y ago
Read it. Honestly the paper is mostly a critique of functional programmers resting on their laurels for too long.
"Hey guys, our tail-recursive fib is just as fast as a for loop in C"
"Yeah that is pretty cool. But uh, we're simulating millions of particles in huge blocks of contiguous memory using C++. Your cons cells are too slow for that."
"Optimizing iteration over our list data structure? Uh ... catch you later."
Anyways good read and it's great that Haskell continues to take performance very seriously without abandoning expressive capability.
- dons 17y agoI can't tell from your post, but remember: this paper is from 1993. That we still today have Ruby vs Lisp posts with fib(n) as the test is pathetic. And as a Haskell guy, I'm going to call out anyone trying to use fibonacci to measure things, even though GHC is kicking butt.