Anatoly Yakovenko
So I tried implementing a more efficient sha1 in haskell, and i got to about 12 times slower as C. The darcs implementation is also around 10 to 12 times slower, and the crypto one is about 450 times slower. I haven't yet unrolled the loop like the darcs implementation does, so I can still get some improvement from that, but I want that to be the last thing i do.
I've been meaning to reply to this for some time but work and domestic duties have intervened. 1. Very good. 2. It has type hash::BS.ByteString -> IO [Word] but hash is a pure function. Can this be changed? 3. I haven't tried but I assume it only runs with ghc and not hugs? I guess if point 1 could be addressed then we could put it in the crypto library (assuming you are happy with this) with some sort of conditional flag to use your code if the library is being built for ghc but to use the slow version for other compilers / interpreters. On a more discursive note, I still don't think we have found the holy grail here: idiomatic functional programming (probably not using StorableArray and unsafeRead and unsafeWrite) and lightning fast speed. Dominic. PS I noticed you have: splitByN::Int -> BS.ByteString -> [BS.ByteString] splitByN nn ll = st : (if (BS.null en) then [] else (splitByN nn en)) where (st,en) = BS.splitAt nn ll It's a function I often use: splitByN n = unfoldr k where k [] = Nothing k p = Just (splitAt n p) Maybe it should be a standard part of List and ByteString?