[Haskell-cafe] Re: [Haskell] [Fwd: Re: Computer Language Shootout]

Kirsten Chevalier catamorphism at gmail.com
Mon Feb 26 15:41:31 EST 2007

[redirecting to haskell-cafe, since this is getting to be a long discussion]

On 2/26/07, Andrzej Jaworski <himself at poczta.nom.pl> wrote:
> The examples I pointed to seem to share strong and relatively consistent
> logic of a program. In case of large GA (e.g. Royal Road Problem) and IFP
> (e.g. ADATE) SML was exhaustively proved to predict this logic much better.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? How do you formally prove that
a programming language (rather than a specific implementation of one)
performs better for a given problem? Or do you mean that a specific
implementation of this problem in SML performed better than a specific
implementation of it in Haskell?

> In case of Algebraic Dynamic Programming C compiler seems to address
> specific properties of a program more adequately which leads to substantial
> improvements in optimization. It is important to stress that we deal in ADP
> with strong logic of the domain application. Handcrafting C code for regular
> applications does not show that kind of advantage, so it wouldn't leave
> Haskell in the dust. In general declarative nature has the edge over C
> craftsmanship (see:
> http://www.clip.dia.fi.upm.es/papers/carro06:stream-interpreter-TR.pdf).

I've read a few of your posts and I still don't understand what you
mean by a compiler "address[ing] specific properties of a program".
Can you give an example of the kinds of program properties you're
talking about, and explain how C compilers exploit them in a way that
Haskell compilers currently fail to do?


Kirsten Chevalier* chevalier at alum.wellesley.edu *Often in error, never in doubt
"Religion is just a fancy word for the Stockholm Syndrome."
-- lj user="pure_agnostic"

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list