I've heard that there are a plethora of Haskell compilers available. Which others give performance comparable to GHC? -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. OCaml for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?e
Hi
I've heard that there are a plethora of Haskell compilers available. Which others give performance comparable to GHC?
None. If you want a stable, well supported, currently maintained, fast Haskell compiler, then that's GHC. (in fact, if you drop fast from that list, you are still left with GHC...) hbc is faster than GHC for some stuff, but hasn't been maintained in a while. Jhc is being worked on, with the goal of beating GHC. They have good performance, but don't really work on many programs, and I'd buy a server farm before compiling the Prelude. Supero is in development, and has promising initial benchmarks. I'm hoping to give a presentation at AngloHaskell on Supero, so hopefully by then I'll have some good benchmarks. I'm actually hacking it as we speak. http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~ndm/supero/ (look at the blog posts) So realistically, at the moment you have only GHC. The future may open up more options. Thanks Neil
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:08:33PM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
I've heard that there are a plethora of Haskell compilers available. Which others give performance comparable to GHC?
Jhc - experimental whole program compiler. slightly better than jhc, but not by much due to a lack of manpower. in the spirit of "get it right, then optimize" currently takes several minutes to compile 10-line programs. :) Hbc - The haskell compiler. Augustsson and Johnsson's pioneering work on compiling lazy languages is embodied in hbc, a direct descendant of the Lazy ML compiler. Generally ~30% slower than GHC, and occasionally faster - rather suprising for a compiler that hasn't been improved in over a decade. http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/nobench/x86_64/results.html Stefan
participants (3)
-
Jon Harrop -
Neil Mitchell -
Stefan O'Rear