From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF887BB84 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:51:03 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,211,1217800800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="14002148" Received: from peray.inria.fr (HELO ausone.inria.fr) ([128.93.8.98]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 14 Aug 2008 23:51:03 +0200 Received: by ausone.inria.fr (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, _d Aug 2008 23:50:23 +0200 From: "Nicolas Pouillard" Cc: Caml_mailing list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Haskell vs OCaml To: Jon Harrop References: <200808141457.47150.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <1218747289-sup-9086@ausone.local> <200808142216.26328.jon@ffconsultancy.com> In-Reply-To: <200808142216.26328.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:50:19 +0200 Message-Id: <1218750570-sup-7635@ausone.local> User-Agent: Sup/git Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-1218750623-780379-40408-4367-8-="; micalg="pgp-sha1" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam: no; 0.00; haskell:01 ocaml:01 haskell:01 arrays:01 storm:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 overflows:01 stack:01 caml-list:01 algorithm:01 rarely:02 slower:02 fortran:02 python:03 X-Attachments: cset="UTF-8" type="application/pgp-signature" name="signature.asc" name="signature.asc" --=-1218750623-780379-40408-4367-8-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Excerpts from Jon Harrop's message of Thu Aug 14 23:16:26 +0200 2008: > On Thursday 14 August 2008 21:57:59 you wrote: > > Excerpts from Jon Harrop's message of Thu Aug 14 15:57:47 +0200 2008: > > > On Thursday 14 August 2008 12:50:43 blue storm wrote: > > > > and Haskell is faster than most (scripting) languages used these days > > > > anyway). > > > > > > Despite being written in Python, Mercurial is orders of magnitude faster > > > than Darcs. > > > > The difference of performances between Darcs and Mercurial is 99% due > > differences in algorithms not in the implementation language. So this > > comparison does not make sense! > > Only if the choice of algorithm was independent of the language, which is > rarely the case. > > For example, Fortran programmers use arrays when they are unsuitable and their > programs can be slower than scripting languages as a consequence. That is > Fortran's fault. > > Does the Darcs implementation overuse singly linked lists because they are > more accessible? Are the reported stack overflows indicative of this? I don't > know but I certainly wouldn't rule it out as a possibility. I'm talking about the informal algorithms, their independent of that kind of things... -- Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai --=-1218750623-780379-40408-4367-8-= Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkikqJsACgkQj+FCNw9dwLlsSgCfcTS5Qc5PECnB1UY4A4ctOCym +fkAnA8sg9P3o0U3ZxsMhTlLg04g3izC =5Zij -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-1218750623-780379-40408-4367-8-=--