On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Scott J. wrote:
I don't think I have got a fair answer to my questions regarding these (silly?) benchmarks. I cannot write the programs with the unboxed "things", but I have both the Ocaml compiler and the latest Glasgow compiler installed on my windows XP machine. So, if someone sends the programs I'll type it in and let you know these results. I don't want to be impolite : the fact that I am on this list proves that I am seriously interested in the elegance of Haskell. But I am searching a language to program in it: I think e.g. to a front end of the Lout typesetting program. Also I have the impression that such fancy things as HOpenGL are not for windows because of the GTK bindings. It seems that I have to move to a Linux OS.
My messages were more addressing the point which came up about what the aims of benchmarking `ought to be' rather than addressing the question. It seems to me most of the most responses are to the question `could a lazy language compiler be written to give fast code' and you're looking at the question `are there settings and programming idioms for a current compiler that give fast code'. I'll leave it up to the much better qualified various experts with the various compilers to give detailled advice. ___cheers,_dave_________________________________________________________ www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~tweed/ | `It's no good going home to practise email:tweed@cs.bris.ac.uk | a Special Outdoor Song which Has To Be work tel:(0117) 954-5250 | Sung In The Snow' -- Winnie the Pooh