3 ms·
For lots of algorithms, fairly naive Haskell can get very close in performance (within 10%) of pretty decent C or C++. For example[1] shows that for very advan
by octo_t 13y ago
For lots of algorithms, fairly naive Haskell can get very close in performance (within 10%) of pretty decent C or C++.
For example[1] shows that for very advanced algorithms (such as BLAS), Haskell can be very performant - with the optimisation being reusable and transparent to the programmer.
[1] - http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/ndp/haskell-beats-C.pdf http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers...
- strmpnk 13y agoThat's kind of an odd comparison, using unfused C code compared to fused Haskell code. Their point seems to focus on stream fusion's advantages and possibly that optimizing C takes more effort. To quote the paper: "Clearly “properly”-written C++ can outperform Haskell. The challenge is in figuring out what “proper” means."