computer language shootout
Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:36:24 -0700
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 10:34:40AM -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> [Bryn Keller]
> While this is absolutely true, and well worth remembering, GHC's
> performance is in some cases reasonably competitive, but in others is many
> times slower than Ocaml. For instance:
> Times are C/Ocaml/GHC
> Sum a Column of Integers: 0.73 / 0.99 / 9.98
> Array Access: 0.11/ 0.14 / 18.78
> But there are also entries like:
> Ackermann's Function 0.09 / 0.04 / 0.06
> Where Ocaml and GHC were both *faster* than C, and GHC was quite
> close to Ocaml.
> I'm just wondering why we can't get performance like (at least)
> Ocaml on all the tests, not just some.
So am I. Have any haskell-performance gurus looked at any of the code? Many of
the slowest entries are written in a very elegant, high-level style that is
probably also relatively slow.
"We in the past evade X, where X is something which we believe to be a
lion, through the act of running." - email@example.com