<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18702">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>It is quite hard for me to tell why this entry is
faster than the one one as I used the C entry as a starting point
which I then refactored multiple times to ensure that the solution is closer to
what one who right in Haskell.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The only big difference I can see between the
two is the different usage of list comprehension. The preceding entry was
building a list which is then refined using the str method to end up being
the list of digits. On the other hand my version use list continuation to
recursively build a list of (digit, state) and then you simply have to
print (map fst (tail digits)).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I did not use the strictness annotations because
they did not improve the performance when I tried to add them and I
thought it is better to show Haskell as one would naturally write
it. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=agocorona@gmail.com href="mailto:agocorona@gmail.com">Alberto G.
Corona </A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=arnaud.payement@gmail.com
href="mailto:arnaud.payement@gmail.com">Arnaud Payement</A> ; <A
title=haskell-cafe@haskell.org
href="mailto:haskell-cafe@haskell.org">haskell-cafe@haskell.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, May 25, 2009 10:54 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Haskell-cafe] The Computer
Language Benchmarks Game: pidigits</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>> :<BR>> > By the way, I did submit my solution. It
improved the score a bit but it<BR>> > is still very memory
hungry.<BR><BR> a bit?<BR>Currentlly it is the fastest in 32 bit .
the memory/speed problems happens in 64 bit benchmarks. I suppose that
the speed is related with the memory leak that will be fixed, Dons
said. Event there doubled the performance of the previous entry.
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Just to learn; how this last version is faster than the previous entry?
This new version does not use strictness annotations. Is this an example
where laziness pays (and indeed causes the memory leak in the 64 bit
architectures?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>