Mailing List Archive
tlug.jp Mailing List tlug archive tlug Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]Re: [tlug] Functional Programming Group Meeting
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:25:30 +0900
- From: Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [tlug] Functional Programming Group Meeting
- References: <20080418052710.GQ19582@lucky.cynic.net> <ed10ee420804180003u62f516faif03c3a4a7f49d765@mail.gmail.com> <20080419072835.GC15075@pragmatic.cynic.net> <ed10ee420804190138p4c8187fbo26d8957c06a42179@mail.gmail.com> <874p9ydz80.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080420063549.GA9312@lucky.cynic.net> <87y778xmfa.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080422222304.GC25426@pragmatic.cynic.net> <878wz5p191.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
On 2008-04-23 14:51 +0900 (Wed), Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Curt Sampson writes: > > > In the case of Darcs 1.x, yes. This is fixed in 2.0. > > No, it hasn't. Nobody has made that claim that I know of. Some > important improvements have been made, but nobody claims that the > exponential conflict issue is fixed, and there been regressions, too. I guess you're thinking of a different issue than the one I know about. Send me the details, if you like, and I'll look into this. > I'm not claiming that average case is bad. I'm claiming that worst > case can be surprisingly bad. So, would you also claim that in non-lazy languages the worst case can also be surprisingly bad? When I set up the full search tree for a problem and start searching it, it suprises me now that the computer went and did about a hundred CPU-years of computations that it then threw away becuase they were never used. I think it's merely a matter of perspective. To take an example that you'll find easy to shoot down in the details, but that I think gets the point across, many programmers probably happen to habitually assume that lists of infinite length consume a lot of resources, or require one to set up some sort of special generator thing; I use them regularly because why would you go to all the extra effort to set up a list good for only 2^63 items when it both can fail and will use more CPU and memory? Haskell certainly needs a different way of thinking. However, saying that "commonly used" algorithms have "suprising" behaviour is about the same as complaining that one's good algorithms don't work in Smalltalk because it doesn't have a computed GOTO. By the way, if you're just saying that the average C++ or Java progammer is sometimes going to be suprised, not to mention mystified, at how bad his favourite algorithm is when used in Haskell, I'm with you there. Obviously I'm not learning Haskell in order to confirm that Java is the best language in the world.... cjs -- Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com> +81 90 7737 2974 Mobile sites and software consulting: http://www.starling-software.com
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [tlug] Functional Programming Group Meeting
- From: Stephen J. Turnbull
- References:
- [tlug] Functional Programming Group Meeting
- From: Curt Sampson
- Re: [tlug] Functional Programming Group Meeting
- From: SL Baur
- Re: [tlug] Functional Programming Group Meeting
- From: Curt Sampson
- Re: [tlug] Functional Programming Group Meeting
- From: SL Baur
- Re: [tlug] Functional Programming Group Meeting
- From: Stephen J. Turnbull
- Re: [tlug] Functional Programming Group Meeting
- From: Curt Sampson
- Re: [tlug] Functional Programming Group Meeting
- From: Stephen J. Turnbull
- Re: [tlug] Functional Programming Group Meeting
- From: Curt Sampson
- Re: [tlug] Functional Programming Group Meeting
- From: Stephen J. Turnbull
Home | Main Index | Thread Index
- Prev by Date: Re: [tlug] Kernel panic
- Next by Date: Re: [tlug] Kernel panic
- Previous by thread: Re: [tlug] Functional Programming Group Meeting
- Next by thread: Re: [tlug] Functional Programming Group Meeting
- Index(es):
Home Page Mailing List Linux and Japan TLUG Members Links