On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 04:31:42PM -0700, Gene A wrote:
hi, Now, is there a speed or "cleaness of code" advantage to using the function composition method using (.) : putStrLn . return . head $ "This and that" over the application method...using ($): putStrLn $ return $ head "this and that"
some thoughts on that ... they both work.. but any advantage or disadvantage to one over the other.. I find a lot of these kind of things in Haskell, and it is purely wonderful.. but always go away wondering if I am really using the most efficient, or most acceptable method.. gene
There is no difference with any good compiler. (.) is always inlined and the types are fixed by the 'putStrLn' so all the overloaded will be gotten rid of. You can pretty much write code in whatever style you want in haskell and count on the compiler to optimize it to be as efficient as possible. The things the compiler can't optimize are usually general inefficient algorithms, not matters of style. There is no need to second guess the compiler for the most part. And certainly not until after you have done profiling or looked at the core and actually seen there is an issue. John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈