Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:11:30 +0100
> thx for this reply.
> Is there any overhead using this mutable?
I just thought I should point out that "Mutable" is not an haskell type.
You can see in the Utils module that it is just a type synonim for IORef:
I think that sometimes STRef might be a better choice...
> Are you also using Templates ?
> With this mutable I can adapt a lot of software from Ocamel.
I think this John Hughes paper "Global Variables in Haskell" might be use=
to you: http://www.math.chalmers.se/~rjmh/Globals.ps
> But the gnawing question remains: Shall it be possible to be almost as
> efficient (in native code) as Ocamel's code, I refer here to Doug Bagle=
> comparison of programming languages. Remarkably the fibonacci numbers t=
> scores almost as well. But the code is not the same. Comparable code wo=
> have been to use the same code of Ocamel, to be more specific: how
> efficiently is recusivity implemented in Haskell. I cannot compare this=
> my Windows XP since I need MSVC6.0 on this machine which I don't have. =
> the other hand I have cygwin installed now. Unfortunately I can't make
> makefiles. Probably on the web I can find an explanation. In this way I=
> recompile Ocamel with Cygwin and compare the results a bit.
> There are also 5(?) failures of Haskell programms . Is there a flaw in
> these programms?
> P.S. does anyone know a good Haskell IDE for Windows XP?
I don't really use windows but I know there is support for the windows ve=
of JCreator: http://www.students.cs.uu.nl/people/rjchaaft/JCreator/
You can always use Xemacs :)