[Haskell-cafe] the last mile in haskell performance

[Janis Voigtländer]

Also, a set of deeper questions could be asked, if you can forgive me this
daydreaming..

If we follow the spirit of self-defined languages (won’t name them):

   1.

   does it make sense to “open up” the process of derivation?
   2.

   what prevents us from describing derivations as a functional
   transformation?
   3.

   what is the possible language for these — TH? something else?

https://wiki.haskell.org/GHC.Generics?
​

2015-11-17 10:50 GMT+01:00 Kosyrev Serge <skosyrev at ptsecurity.com>:

> "Alberto G. Corona " <agocorona at gmail.com> writes:
> > Hi Will,
> > Right, I'm not an expert on low level things, but yes, each memory
> > page can cache a different vector and even can work faster. Specially
> > if the algoritm uses a few fields of a large structure. I was wrong on
> > that.
> >
> > But anyway, Unboxed need more native support to give Haskell more
> > credibility in performance critical problems. Now it has some
> > conversion overhead for user defined data. That may be optimized away
> > but the whole thing is second class, via an instance instead of a
> > language feature.
> >
> > Maybe automatic deriving Unboxed instances can be the right compromise
>
> Given how the imagination immediately suggests that:
>
>   1. performance nuances dictated by the context might suggest different
>      preferences for Unboxed encodings..
>
>   2. and, on the other hand, given the undesirability of always engaging
>      oneself into full-blown instance definition -- for various reasons..
>
> ..it suggests that a language feature would be helpful, that would allow
> to gradually inform the derivation GHC makes, without fully engaging into
> specifying complete details.
>
> Can we imagine that a derivation could proceed, for example, from:
>
>   - a /subset/ of minimal typeclass definition, or alternatively
>   - direct parameters
>
> ..?
>
> Also, a set of deeper questions could be asked, if you can forgive me this
> daydreaming..
>
> If we follow the spirit of self-defined languages (won't name them):
>
>  1. does it make sense to "open up" the process of derivation?
>
>  2. what prevents us from describing derivations as a functional
> transformation?
>
>  3. what is the possible language for these -- TH? something else?
>
>
> --
> с уважениeм / respectfully,
> Косырев Сергей
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20151117/52c1ff3c/attachment.html>