Never mind. I screwed up the timings.
The new haskell timings are still a huge improvement but they are:
-0.169075164
-0.169031665
real 0m27.196s
user 0m19.688s
sys 0m0.163s
Oops forgot to hit reply-to-all.. resending..N-body is looking good. I am running and amd64 3000+ on ghc 6.8.1. The debian shootout is showing a huge gap between ghc 6.6 and g++ but I am not seeing that gap. One concern though is that the code doesn't look very "haskellish". So much pointer manip.
For the nbody c++ code I am getting:
-0.169075164
-0.169031665
real 0m11.168s
user 0m10.891s
sys 0m0.043s
and for the nbody haskell code I am getting:
-0.169075164
-0.169031665
real 0m11.595s
user 0m11.422s
sys 0m0.044sOn Nov 26, 2007 8:21 PM, Don Stewart <dons@galois.com> wrote:s.clover:> In some spare time over the holidays I cooked up three shootoutYay!
> entries, for Fasta, the Meteor Contest, and Reverse Complement. IWell done! Though looks like we'll have to follow the C++ implementation
> First up is the meteor-contest entry.
>
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?
> test=meteor&lang=ghc&id=5
>
> This is the clear win of the bunch, with significantly improved time
> thanks to its translation of the better algorithm from Clean.
to be really competitive.Very good. I'm glad someone looked at that, since the old code was
> Next is reverse-complement.
>
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php ?
> test=revcomp&lang=ghc&id=3
moderately naive (first bytestring effort).Yeah, we should do something better here. Hmm.
> Finally, there's fasta.
>
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?
> test=fasta&lang=ghc&id=2Definitely. I note also we're beating Erlang on the new thread-ring
> p.s. It looks like they've depreciated chameneos in favor of a new
> version, chameneos-redux. As this was one of the places Haskell
> really rocked the competition, it would probably be worth updating
benchmark too,
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=threadring&lang=allYeah, that's a hard one.
> the Haskell entry for the new benchmark. Also, the n-bodies benchmark
> seems like another that could be much improved.
-- Don_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe