Received: from spf3.us4.outblaze.com (spf3.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.25]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iA9J6lCB009164 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:06:47 GMT Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [199.232.76.165]) by spf3.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6BEE53D84 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:06:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRbNA-0001U7-AZ for migo@homemail.com; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:09:44 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CRbMj-0001Su-At for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:09:17 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CRbMi-0001S3-EF for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:09:16 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRbMi-0001Rw-97 for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:09:16 -0500 Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=main.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CRbE9-0006SU-3P for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:00:25 -0500 Received: from root by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CRbE6-0008LG-00 for ; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:00:23 +0100 Received: from jrj.viasat.com ([199.106.52.24]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:00:22 +0100 Received: from cakoose by jrj.viasat.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:00:22 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org From: Kannan Goundan Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:54:02 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20041107234609.7bf0abfe@delta.hk.office.outblaze.com> <877jowbl8w.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <1099920390.31269.11.camel@pc1117> <20041108150847.GB4720@suffields.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 199.106.52.24 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040614 Firefox/0.9) Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla X-BeenThere: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: a discussion list for all things arch-ish List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Status: RO Content-Length: 1452 Lines: 22 > That sort of thing is why darcs is slow. Optimising Haskell programs > is more or less equally difficult as optimising C programs (functional > languages are not inherently any easier or harder to optimise), and > the problems are pretty much the same. tla even has analogous issues > (it tackles this problem differently, and I think does a little > better in the amortised case, but it's far from optimal). Since Haskell is, in a way, more strict and more restrictive, wouldn't it be easier for a compiler to optimize Haskell programs (since the code is bounded by stronger guarantees)? Dealing with side-effects and aliasing is a major pain for C compilers. C has an advantage because it's easier for a programmer to manually perform low-level optimizations (stuff that compilers aren't yet smart enough to perform by themselves). With Haskell, you're working at such a high level that it's difficult to predict exactly how your code will translate into ASM, making it harder to "coerce" the compiler into generating code in a certain way. Haskell's lazy evaluation also adds to this problem. (Of course, there are probably Haskell experts who know exactly how their code will be compiled, but it is definitely harder). _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/