7 ms·
But it is faster. It's both faster to compiler and faster to run. I think it's a valid reason to prefer Haskell.
by joehillen 13y ago
But it is faster. It's both faster to compiler and faster to run. I think it's a valid reason to prefer Haskell.
- nomad42184 13y agoExcept that it isn't faster at runtime (http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=ghc&lang2=scala&data=u32q http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?t...).
- Pacabel 13y agoIf you want to prove your point, using totally unrealistic micro-"benchmarks" such as those is by far the worst way about doing so. You're better off giving no evidence whatsoever than you are referring to those.
- yen223 13y agoAre there any more realistic benchmarks that we can refer to? Because I've read a lot about how Haskell supposedly runs faster because of its purity, but I've not seen a lot of evidence actually supporting that notion.
- igouy 13y ago"[B]etter off giving no evidence" than pointing to measurements that provide a known context -- source code, implementation version, command lines, measurement scripts... Nonsense.
- nomad42184 13y agoEveryone knows, of course, that these benchmarks don't tell the whole story. However, it's ludicrous to assert that providing no evidence is better than providing a array of microbenchmarks across a variety of different languages, machines and implementations. Further, the assertion that Haskell is "faster" (in some blanket sense) than Scala is completely evidence-free.
- profdemarco 13y agoAlmost all the Haskell entries in the shootout are just using the FFI to call into C libraries. None of them are remotely close to idiomatic Haskell.
- nomad42184 13y ago@profdemarco --- sure; and they're still not faster than their Scala counterparts.