3 ms·
I've heard quite the opposite. I've heard that GHC is state of the art in the depth and breadth of optimizations it can perform. I'm struggling to remember if t
by codygman 11y ago
I've heard quite the opposite. I've heard that GHC is state of the art in the depth and breadth of optimizations it can perform. I'm struggling to remember if the context was "of everything" or just within pure functional programming.
- platz 11y agoGHC has great optimizations within the scope of modules (and seems to balance for the right level of polymorphism/modularity/linking), and can inline some things across module boundaries. But at the level of entire programs more advanced optimizations are possible; I gather there are tradeoffs too. http://mlton.org/ http://mlton.org/ https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/2tpmbo/what_on_earth_happened_to_whole_program/ https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/2tpmbo/what_on_ear... http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4720499/possible-optimizations-in-haskell-that-are-not-yet-implemented-in-ghc http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4720499/possible-optimiza...
- codygman 11y agoML isn't that popular though right? Would it be fair to say GHC had the most impressive optimizations of mainstream language? With that said I certainly wonder why ML isn't more popular!