I'm still trying to figure out what the point of the shootout really is. If there's no dedicated folks working with a language there, trying to make things run faster, a language will come out looking inefficient potentially. There's a lot of compile flags and optimizations that can make a difference in probably all of the languages listed on that page.
Hey,I was looking at the reverse-complement benchmark on the Language Shootout, and among other things, I noticed that the Haskell implementation was using (filter (/= '\n')) on ByteStrings, and also using lists as queues.I had a few improvements which using -fasm seem to yield about a 19% improvement in speed, and a 35% reduction in allocation, on my computer. (If both programs are compiled with -fllvm -- I'm not sure whether or not that's fair game on the Shootout -- my implementation is 35% faster, and does 10% less allocation.) I've checked my code on the Shootout's test input, as well.Mostly, the improvement comes from a tightly specialized version of (filter (/= '\n')), although eliminating an intermediate list entirely (and one used in a queuelike fashion) didn't seem to hurt. I managed to cut the program to a point where the program size is about the same as before.The code is at http://hpaste.org/fastcgi/hpaste.fcgi/view?id=25865; the previous implementation is at http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/program.php?test=revcomp&lang=ghc&id=2.Let the arguing begin?
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe