[Haskell-cafe] OCaml list sees abysmal Language Shootout results
Keith.Wansbrough at cl.cam.ac.uk
Tue Sep 28 05:46:14 EDT 2004
I just saw this on the OCaml list (in a posting by "Rafael 'Dido'
Sevilla" <dido at imperium.ph> in the "Observations on OCaml vs. Haskell"
thread). I can't believe that a simple "wc" implementation should be
570 times slower in Haskell than OCaml - could someone investigate and
fix the test?
> > 2. Haskell strings are lists of characters
> > It's annoying that strings aren't normally processed this way in OCaml,
> > and even more annoying that (^) or (::) cannot be used in pattern
> > matching over strings. I like Haskell's approach. The list
> > concatenation operator is the same as the string concatenation operator
> > in Haskell.
> This is something of an efficiency/elegance tradeoff. Making strings
> act like lists means potentially boxing *every character in the string*.
> In other words, it's potentially a very expensive way of doing business.
> Paul Graham was mulling over this kind of tradeoff in his design of Arc,
> as I recall. Another language that does this type of thing is Erlang,
> and both languages seem to be significantly slower than OCaml in string
> handling, at least as far as this site goes:
> For the word count benchmark OCaml scores 0.1850 seconds, while GHC is a
> dismal last place at 105.2110 seconds! Even the bytecode ocaml is an
> order of magnitude faster. The word frequency benchmark also shows this
> kind of poor string handling performance for Haskell, with OCaml scoring
> 0.5669 seconds, while GHC scores a truly dismal 6.4540, more than an
> order of magnitude slower, and even the bytecode ocaml is faster at
> 4.2644 seconds.
> All in all, it would appear that Haskell's approach has been expensive
> in terms of performance, if the benchmarks are to be taken at face
> value. Such are the tradeoffs language designers have to make.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe