3 ms·
I think this shows off far more power than the Haskell version; a rather straightforward implementation which is faster than the original but not with the optim
by tluyben2 7y ago
I think this shows off far more power than the Haskell version; a rather straightforward implementation which is faster than the original but not with the optimizing the author went through with the Haskell version.
Readability wise this suffers (not everyone will recognize the cr lf space tab sequence and then it would be really hard to understand I would think) but I don't find it much more unreadable than the faster Haskell versions (you need a lot of prior knowledge to fluently read those as well) and at least the q version is built from primitives while with Haskell it needs quite a lot of libs to make it perform at all. I like Haskell (and more static typing in general) but I also like having 1, short, manual and being able to implement everything I want to implement without having to include many (unknown/potentially painful) libs but without writing 10000s of lines of code either.