On 05/06/13 02:49, silvio wrote:
Just to clarify for those on the sidelines, the issue is duplication of implementation details, rather than duplication of functionality?
Well to me, that is not the main issue. The main issue is that you have to study all of them and depending on which libraries you want to use have to convert between them, which could be expensive and is definitely annoying.
I made a few simple benchmarks comparing the three libraries you can find the code attached.
this is compiled with -O2
# simple sum of 1000000 Word8 elements
Unboxed Vector 1.114060 ms Storable Vector 795.1207 us Primitive Vector 1.116145 ms
ByteString 9.076256 ms
array library has no fold or sum function
# simple sum of 1000000 more or less randomly chosen elements
Unboxed Vector (unsafe) 33.74364 ms Storable Vector (unsafe) 50.27273 ms Storable Vector (safe) 67.01634 ms Primitive Vector (unsafe) 56.29919 ms
ByteString (unsafe) 19.29611 ms ByteString (safe) 18.29065 ms
UArray (safe) 46.88719 ms unsafe does not exist for array
So Unboxed can be better than Storable but doesn't need to be. Also, which implementation is faster depends very much on the problem at hand. And array is just missing half the needed features.
Silvio
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe array does provide folding functions, found in its Foldable and Traversable instances.