Rodrigo Queiro | 1 Nov 10:09 2007

Re: Re: Why can't Haskell be faster?

I assume the reason the switched away from LOC is to prevent
programmers artificially reducing their LOC count, e.g. by using
a = 5; b = 6;
rather than
a = 5;
b = 6;

in languages where newlines aren't syntactically significant. When
gzipped, I guess that the ";\n" string will be represented about as
efficiently as just the single semi-colon.

On 01/11/2007, Ketil Malde <ketil+haskell <at>> wrote:
> Don Stewart <dons <at>> writes:
> > goalieca:
> >>    So in a few years time when GHC has matured we can expect performance to
> >>    be on par with current Clean? So Clean is a good approximation to peak
> >>    performance?
> If I remember the numbers, Clean is pretty close to C for most
> benchmarks, so I guess it is fair to say it is a good approximation to
> practical peak performance.
> Which proves that it is possible to write efficient low-level code in
> Clean.
> > And remember usually Haskell is competing against 'high level' languages
> > like python for adoption, where we're 5-500x faster anyway...
(Continue reading)