> I do think we have the opposite problem, however, in much Haskell code
-- people are using the clean, obviously correct, but inefficient code
even in standard library functions that really should be optimized like
crazy!<br><br>And even before optimizing "like crazy", I think the functions that are "more often" good should be emphasized: Prelude should export foldl' together with/instead of foldl, sum should have its sum' counterpart (or even be rewritten to use foldl'), and so on...<br>
It baffles me that functions that are said to be more efficient in the majority of cases are not the default.<br><br>> I have worked at places in industry where teams automatically use C++ for everything.<br><br>Have they looked at you like if you were an alien (and even said you were not a serious developper) when you emitted the possibility of evaluating the feasibility of using/making a more expressive language for a specific task?<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/5/21 Ryan Newton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rrnewton@gmail.com" target="_blank">rrnewton@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>The unconditional desire for maximum possible object code</div>
performance is usually very stupid, not to mention impossible to reach<br>
with any high level language and any multi-tasking operating system. <br></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Definitely. I don't know if we have a catchy term for "kneejerk optimization" or if it falls under the broader umbrella of "premature optimization" [including misdirected or unneeded optimization]. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I do think we have the opposite problem, however, in much Haskell code -- people are using the clean, obviously correct, but inefficient code even in standard library functions that really should be optimized like crazy! </div>
<div class="im">
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Haskell's average penalty compared to C is<br>
no reason to write the entire application in C. </blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Yes, this seems to be a separate disease. Not just using low-level langs, per se, but using them for *everything*. I have worked at places in industry where teams automatically use C++ for everything. For example, they use it for building all complete GUI applications, which surprises me a little bit. I would have thought in recent years that almost everyone was using *something* else (Java,Python, whatever) to do much of the performance-non-critical portions of their application logic.</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div> </div><div> -Ryan</div><div><br></div></font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>