3 ms·
GHC has great optimizations within the scope of modules (and seems to balance for the right level of polymorphism/modularity/linking), and can inline some thing
by platz 11y ago
GHC 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!