3 ms·

>but to get close to C in any non-trivial problem, you will end up writing imperative code. I know that's not true because I do it on a regular basis. For pro

>but to get close to C in any non-trivial problem, you will end up writing imperative code. I know that's not true because I do it on a regular basis. For problems that require writing imperative code you end up writing imperative code. This is not a problem, writing imperative code in haskell is far nice than writing it in C. >Monadic Haskell takes 11 seconds "Monadic Haskell" is meaningless when making performance claims. If you want help fixing your code, you need to post it. And idiomatic haskell uses monads all the time. Is this another case of the common "I am pretending that deliberately doing things the slowest way possible is the definition of idiomatic" trolling? >C takes 1 seconds If your C++ is taking 3x as long as your C you are doing something wrong.

topviz 12y ago
Can you give an example of the code you write which is on par with C in terms of speed and is non-trivial? Did you look up the algorithm? (it is perfectly defined recursively) Arguing what is nicer is subjective. To clarify, I did not write the code (mine is the C version), the results are from the paper. Read it, beat it and post results.
- tel 12y ago
  Often obvious recursive algorithms aren't well-optimized by GHC. This might be the kind of "bend over backwards" coding you're talking about, though. The way you can escape from this performance trap is to (as usual) write explicit state passing instead of direct recursion. GHC can inline and fuse these away much more nicely and often arrives at a very tight, C-like inner loop. I'm not sure if I call this bending over backwards though since Haskell style has always been to avoid explicit recursion and this kind of state-passing transform can be hidden behind the same set of combinators you're used to.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  I'm not going to go buy a book just so I can spend the time writing code for you to dismiss as "oh that's not idiomatic haskell". Are you saying you don't actually know and are just repeating the claims made by the authors? Do you know haskell?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >* Are you saying you don't actually know and are just repeating the claims made by the authors?* No, he gives reference. >Do you know haskell? Can you support your claims? Surely the burden on proof is on "Haskell is just as fast".
    - imanaccount247 12y ago
      Wow, I just noticed the name and saw that all these empty shitposts are the same person. >No, he gives reference. Why are you speaking to what someone else knows? Your desire to see your own words exceeds your ability to string together words in a constructive manner. >Can you support your claims? Surely the burden on proof is on "Haskell is just as fast". I made no such claim. Your dishonesty is appalling.
      - coldtea 12y ago
        "shitposts", "appaling dishonesty", "desire to see my own words", no "ability to sting words in a constructive manner", etc. Those were aimed at me. And these were aimed at at the parent: "you don't actually know", "are just repeating the claims made by the authors", "do you know haskell?", "trolling", "you are doing something wrong". Plus condescending responses like "if you want you code fixed" and "I'm not going to buy a book just so I can spend the time writing code for you to dismiss" -- when given a reference by the parent. I only intervened because I didn't like your constant condescending tone. Are you actually here to discuss, or you just came to insult people? If it's the second, maybe try Reddit?
        imanaccount247 12y ago
        >And these were aimed at at the parent: And they were questions. >Are you actually here to discuss Yes, that is what questions are for. Why are you here? You don't seem to have any intention of trying to contribute in a productive manner.

topviz 12y ago

Can you give an example of the code you write which is on par with C in terms of speed and is non-trivial? Did you look up the algorithm? (it is perfectly defined recursively) Arguing what is nicer is subjective. To clarify, I did not write the code (mine is the C version), the results are from the paper. Read it, beat it and post results.

tel 12y ago
Often obvious recursive algorithms aren't well-optimized by GHC. This might be the kind of "bend over backwards" coding you're talking about, though. The way you can escape from this performance trap is to (as usual) write explicit state passing instead of direct recursion. GHC can inline and fuse these away much more nicely and often arrives at a very tight, C-like inner loop. I'm not sure if I call this bending over backwards though since Haskell style has always been to avoid explicit recursion and this kind of state-passing transform can be hidden behind the same set of combinators you're used to.
imanaccount247 12y ago
I'm not going to go buy a book just so I can spend the time writing code for you to dismiss as "oh that's not idiomatic haskell". Are you saying you don't actually know and are just repeating the claims made by the authors? Do you know haskell?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 12y ago
  >* Are you saying you don't actually know and are just repeating the claims made by the authors?* No, he gives reference. >Do you know haskell? Can you support your claims? Surely the burden on proof is on "Haskell is just as fast".
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    Wow, I just noticed the name and saw that all these empty shitposts are the same person. >No, he gives reference. Why are you speaking to what someone else knows? Your desire to see your own words exceeds your ability to string together words in a constructive manner. >Can you support your claims? Surely the burden on proof is on "Haskell is just as fast". I made no such claim. Your dishonesty is appalling.
    - coldtea 12y ago
      "shitposts", "appaling dishonesty", "desire to see my own words", no "ability to sting words in a constructive manner", etc. Those were aimed at me. And these were aimed at at the parent: "you don't actually know", "are just repeating the claims made by the authors", "do you know haskell?", "trolling", "you are doing something wrong". Plus condescending responses like "if you want you code fixed" and "I'm not going to buy a book just so I can spend the time writing code for you to dismiss" -- when given a reference by the parent. I only intervened because I didn't like your constant condescending tone. Are you actually here to discuss, or you just came to insult people? If it's the second, maybe try Reddit?
      - imanaccount247 12y ago
        >And these were aimed at at the parent: And they were questions. >Are you actually here to discuss Yes, that is what questions are for. Why are you here? You don't seem to have any intention of trying to contribute in a productive manner.