Andrzej Jaworski wrote:
Hi Knights,
As I regretfully pointed out earlier in [Fwd: Re: Computer Language Shootout] large search and simulations are not for Haskell. This is equally true with GHC 6.5 http://eric_rollins.home.mindspring.com/haskellAnt.html.
After checking the code I must say this is not convincing at all. The code isn't optimized. That said, I think we can thank you for some more code to compare the speed with ML once someone has tuned it :)
Also there is much illusion about Haskell potential ease at handling mathematics. Yes Haskell is excellent for demonstration but trying to implement algorithms that would do trickier things is pretty tough. A thing
so far in my experience, it is the opposite. it takes a while to learn to think in the right way however.
where Haskell could potentially offer something that a regular CAS cannot is calculating a tensors with symbolic indices (without components) so that one could have components calculated for specific cases on the end of general calculation. Perhaps somebody more technical than me could take the challenge? It could lure theoretical physicists into Haskell which might pay back. One of them has recently provided Curry with the fastest compiler:-)