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=1.9 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 02F01BBB7 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:06:31 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkYCADLYo0hA6aq/mmdsb2JhbACRQT4BAQEBAQgFCAcRA5xzhngBAoMd X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,210,1217800800"; d="scan'208";a="13992386" Received: from rn-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.170.191]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 14 Aug 2008 16:06:30 +0200 Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id v46so113191rnb.20 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:06:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:reply-to:to:subject:date :user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=551yWeTHvvVdjDyZqjCcMOFTdsWdqGHpEruWWK8hMVE=; b=eH9Ycu1lUJGrmqghzqaetNGVhWY1AfDrKgs1TI08u9KXbTzKj5ofsm3hZhAd9E65eT gL54hpdyGNxHCw3g8izrvTU7iopCNkaJz8vm3iphUVoeQgPu60KLb4P5yw8pEegbkxIK Rd4swa2bXEiwNvjeWCgIC8L2/ea4G9l4GqGvA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :message-id; b=deWyI4+sA8QQWsFnjGmKkN8NsoYHd40Zfbtkev3dfxYoWE/OCnAkc0CHEVOjrCZKJX gB2lIaZONoAekuaBq6jocNPudIy4shLsu5vGgrvYhz5iLlbuik1Me8Mc6GoINGyiE5+7 2Nqo01AQhqP0qpF+YL3H5ZD9rqG6o5oUtisL8= Received: by 10.114.196.1 with SMTP id t1mr1175684waf.80.1218722788850; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lawn-143-215-204-204.lawn.gatech.edu ( [143.215.204.204]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6sm677991yxg.6.2008.08.14.07.06.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:06:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Peng Zang Reply-To: peng.zang@gmail.com To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Haskell vs OCaml Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:06:18 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: Jon Harrop References: <527cf6bc0808140450w3182b14n60764d3862b9080f@mail.gmail.com> <200808141457.47150.jon@ffconsultancy.com> In-Reply-To: <200808141457.47150.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200808141006.26661.peng.zang@gmail.com> X-Spam: no; 0.00; haskell:01 ocaml:01 hash:01 monads:01 haskell:01 ocaml:01 haskell's:01 non-trivial:01 haskell's:01 compiler:01 compiler:01 peng:98 peng:98 gotta:98 props:98 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 14 August 2008 09:57:47 am Jon Harrop wrote: > Monads and zippers? They can be useful for the same reasons they are in Haskell. You can always write OCaml code like Haskell code, it's just not always easiest to do it that way. > Even if Haskell's performance is improved it will remain unpredictable and, > consequently, it will continue to be impossible to optimize non-trivial > Haskell programs. That's true, but I think Haskell's point of view is to stop that completely. They want to remove optimization of code and put it into the hands of the compiler. The ideal is to say to the programmer: "don't worry about performance and optimization, just write correct code. The compiler will figure out the rest". Clearly we're not at that point, and perhaps that ideal is a long ways to become true if possible at all. But you gotta give them props for the idea. It would be nice to only care about correctness and not performance. Peng -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIpDvifIRcEFL/JewRAvCyAJwNdNYMEx8TKWwwDB1D6X3C5258uwCghlP3 ZaogvTv/CydHsPQ+ETA/+KI= =eQDx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----