On 11/10/06, Henk-Jan van Tuyl <hjgtuyl at chello.nl> wrote:
Haskell suddenly dropped several places in the overall socre, when
size measurement changed from line-count to number-of-bytes after gzipping. Maybe it's worth it, to study why this is; Haskell
the programs
are often much more compact then programs in other languages, but after gzipping, other languages do much better. One reason I can think of, is that for very short programs, the import statements weigh heavily.
Before this gets out-of-hand, my memory is certainly fallible but as I recall Haskell /did not/ drop several places because size measurement changed from line-count to gzip byte-count. 1) Check the webpage that Don Stewart cached and note the values for the memory use and code-lines multipliers, and note the values for the benchmark weights http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/data/haskell_1.html Now go to the computer language shootout website and note the multipliers and benchmark weights. 2) Some Haskell programs were pushed into 'interesting alternative implementations' because they'd strayed so far from the spirit of the benchmark. (It takes a while for people to notice and complain, but eventually they do.) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
igouy2:
On 11/10/06, Henk-Jan van Tuyl <hjgtuyl at chello.nl> wrote:
Haskell suddenly dropped several places in the overall socre, when
size measurement changed from line-count to number-of-bytes after gzipping. Maybe it's worth it, to study why this is; Haskell
the programs
are often much more compact then programs in other languages, but after gzipping, other languages do much better. One reason I can think of, is that for very short programs, the import statements weigh heavily.
Before this gets out-of-hand, my memory is certainly fallible but as I recall Haskell /did not/ drop several places because size measurement changed from line-count to gzip byte-count.
1) Check the webpage that Don Stewart cached and note the values for the memory use and code-lines multipliers, and note the values for the benchmark weights http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/data/haskell_1.html
Now go to the computer language shootout website and note the multipliers and benchmark weights.
2) Some Haskell programs were pushed into 'interesting alternative implementations' because they'd strayed so far from the spirit of the benchmark. (It takes a while for people to notice and complain, but eventually they do.)
I agree. Breaking the rules was mainly the reason for the drop. Entries like chameneos and fasta. Also, the other language teams kept improving things. Other language (perl, iirc) were affected far worse by the gzipping. gzip is an interesting measurement, and it doesn't hurt Haskell too much either way -- short Haskell programs stay short when compressed. As a result, rewriting verbose entries to ByteString will probably be much more useful :) Btw, Isaac, are we going to have any new parallelism benchmarks? I'd love to try out the SMP runtime ;) -- Don
Hello Isaac, Saturday, November 11, 2006, 5:56:57 AM, you wrote:
2) Some Haskell programs were pushed into 'interesting alternative implementations' because they'd strayed so far from the spirit of the benchmark. (It takes a while for people to notice and complain, but eventually they do.)
it's very real :) while ghc allows to write rather fast programs, such programs are much harder to write and manage than even equivalent C ones! just for comparison: -- compact, but very slow s = sum arr // not so compact, but very fast double sum=0; for(int i=0; i<10; i++) sum+=arr[i]; // nor fast, nor compact, nor in Haskell spirit anyway :)) sum' <- newIORef 0 for 0 10 $ \i -> do x <- unsafeRead arr i sum <- readIORef sum' writeIORef sum' (sum+x) for :: Int -> Int -> (Int -> IO a) -> IO () -- Faster equivalent of "mapM_ action [from..to-1]" for from to action = go from where go i | i>=to = return () | otherwise = do action i go $! (i+1) -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com
participants (3)
-
Bulat Ziganshin -
dons＠cse.unsw.edu.au -
Isaac Gouy