5 ms·

Exactly. A this point you can just write idiomatic haskell-98 list code and just do an import qualified Data.Vector.Unboxed as V and get blazing-fast perf

Exactly. A this point you can just write idiomatic haskell-98 list code and just do an import qualified Data.Vector.Unboxed as V and get blazing-fast performance. Even with the complication of laziness, getting great (for most reasonable definitions of great) performance out of pure haskell code was a solved problem years ago. Doing high-performance IO looks like it's getting there too.

SkyMarshal 15y ago
Meant to upvote, fat-finger downvoted instead, my bad. Hopefully somebody compensates.
- duncanbojangles 15y ago
  This is wildly off-topic, but an idea caught my interest. I upvoted the parent of your comment to compensate for your downvote and it made me wonder how many other people have done the same. It put a bunch of thoughts in my head that I can't seem to form into coherent words, but those thoughts have to do with gaining quite a bit of comment karma from one person's accident, karma trolling, etc. I can't imagine that occurring on HN too any extent, but it's an interesting thought.
  - bo1024 15y ago
    Tangentially, there are people in CS who study trust/reputation systems (like karma), and how to design those systems so that people want to participate and "do the right thing". Maybe related.
Drbble 15y ago
Solved how? Most Haskell performance advice (like Tibbel's recent presentation) is to add strictness annotations, which is both non-Haskell98 and non-lazy. So it is solved, but not elegantly or hidden in core libraries.
- jberryman 15y ago
  Fair point. I meant solved in that it's not difficult with a bit of experience and profiling. I actually don't mind the workflow of writing naive (or non-prematurely-optimized) code and then adding strictness hints where the compiler needs it.
- jberryman 15y ago
  Ah, also meant to say that adding strictness with `seq` is haskell 98, and there's nothing so strange about forcing evaluation in a lazy language.

SkyMarshal 15y ago

Meant to upvote, fat-finger downvoted instead, my bad. Hopefully somebody compensates.

duncanbojangles 15y ago
This is wildly off-topic, but an idea caught my interest. I upvoted the parent of your comment to compensate for your downvote and it made me wonder how many other people have done the same. It put a bunch of thoughts in my head that I can't seem to form into coherent words, but those thoughts have to do with gaining quite a bit of comment karma from one person's accident, karma trolling, etc. I can't imagine that occurring on HN too any extent, but it's an interesting thought.
- bo1024 15y ago
  Tangentially, there are people in CS who study trust/reputation systems (like karma), and how to design those systems so that people want to participate and "do the right thing". Maybe related.

Drbble 15y ago

Solved how? Most Haskell performance advice (like Tibbel's recent presentation) is to add strictness annotations, which is both non-Haskell98 and non-lazy. So it is solved, but not elegantly or hidden in core libraries.

jberryman 15y ago
Fair point. I meant solved in that it's not difficult with a bit of experience and profiling. I actually don't mind the workflow of writing naive (or non-prematurely-optimized) code and then adding strictness hints where the compiler needs it.
jberryman 15y ago
Ah, also meant to say that adding strictness with `seq` is haskell 98, and there's nothing so strange about forcing evaluation in a lazy language.