On 20 Feb 2009, at 23:33, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Achim,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:17:08 AM, you wrote:
nothing new: what you are not interested in real compilers comparison, preferring to demonstrate artificial results
...that we have a path to get better results than gcc -O3 -funroll-loops, and it's within reach... we even can get there now, albeit not in the most hack-free way imaginable?
well, can this be made for C++? yes. moreover, gcc does this trick *automatically*, while with ghc we need to write 50-line program using Template Haskell and then run it through gcc - and finally get exactly the same optimization we got automatic for C code
so, again: this confirms that Don is always build artificial comparisons, optimizing Haskell code by hand and ignoring obvious ways to optimize Haskell code. unfortunately, this doesn't work in real live. and even worse - Don reports this as fair Haskell vs C++ comparison
You need look no further than the debian language shootout that things really aren't as bad as you're making out – Haskell comes in in general less than 3x slower than gcc compiled C. Of note, of all the managed languages, this is about the fastest – none of the other languages that offer safety and garbage collection etc get as close as Haskell does. Bob