[Haskell-cafe] In-place modification

[Andreas Marth]

If you are so sure that C# will be better than haskell why not prove it at the ICFP (http://www.icfpcontest.org/).
That should be as fair as possible with your requests for comparison.
It is running next weekend (20th-23rd of July), so you can prove how superior your C# is.
If you win, peobably everyone here will recognize it.
So go and register.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hugh Perkins 
  To: Sebastian Sylvan 
  Cc: haskell-cafe at haskell.org 
  Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:39 PM
  Subject: Re: Re[4]: [Haskell-cafe] In-place modification


  On 7/15/07, Sebastian Sylvan <sebastian.sylvan at gmail.com> wrote:
  [Lots of stuff]

  Ok, Sebastian, there's such a thing as analysing products along multiple orthogonal axes. 

  At no point have I claimed that C# is better at threading than Haskell, in fact I'm pretty sure I've mostly suggested that Haskell might have answers for this?

  Nevertheless, threading is not the only point of interest when one analyses a language.  One is also interested in things like: 
  - how easy is it to check function parameters for type (ok in Haskell) and name (not ok)
  - how fast does a pure computational function actually run.  It's fine saying threading will multiple execution times by the number of cores, but on a 256-core machine, if the underlying code runs 500 times slower, you're actually going to run 50% slower overall ;-) and use up every processor on that machine just for that one task 
  - how easy it to do things that are necessary for one's job. For me this means things like:
     - is it easy to serialize arbitrary objects to/from xml (answer: didnt used to be, but I managed to implement a good-enough solution) 
     - create forms/web pages (answer: havent checked yet)
     - carry out network rpc (answer: doesnt exist yet, would need to write it myself)
     - use opengl (not for my job, but I enjoy doing things outside of work too ;-) ) 
  - how easy is it for typical developers to use.  (answer: not easy; that means developers will cost lots more money)

  So... benchmarking comes into play to find out how fast a pure computational function actually runs (point 2), and how well opengl runs (point 3.4).  I didnt try opengl yet, I'm not holding my breath, but I'll give it a shot and see what happens.

  For the pure computation, FWIW my personal conclusions at the moment:
  - Haskell can get up to C# speeds, by using imperative algorithms 
  - what does this say about lazy algorithms???
  - intuitively written, maintainable Haskell algorithms run at far from C# speeds

  It's ok, I'm not planning on using Haskell today, I'm sure you guys will sort this stuff out by the time Haskell becomes useful. 

  Or: the concepts from Haskell that work well will be imported into other languages.  If you can run haskell in imperative-mode, I dont see why C# cant run in pure mode.  In that case, knowing how haskell works will probably make it easier to understand how C#-puremode works. 




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Haskell-Cafe mailing list
  Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
  http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20070715/412da577/attachment.htm