 |
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
From: Didier Verna <did...@lrde.epita.fr>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:23:50 +0200
Local: Mon, Oct 9 2006 3:23 am
Subject: Re: references about the beauty of functional programming ?
Pietro Abate <doesntex...@hotmail.com> wrote: You may be interested in my recent paper at ECOOP'06 Lisp workshop: > On 2006-10-08, ig...@yahoo.com <ig...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> > - Even if functional languages are still slower then C/C++ in particular >>> > domains, the difference in performance has been considerably reduced >>> > in the last decade > What I'm looking for is a peer-reviewed paper of some empirical evidence > to support (or disproof) my thesis... You certainly don't need to > convince me ... but I need this to convince others, and I'm definitely > too young to cite myself ! :) "Beating C in Scientific Computing Applications -- On the Behavior and It's for a specific set of applications / operations, but I believe you'll You can find it near the top of this page: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier/comp/research/publi.php -- Didier Verna EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85 You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
From: Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:05:32 +0100
Local: Mon, Oct 9 2006 10:05 am
Subject: Re: references about the beauty of functional programming ?
Didier Verna wrote: Is the code available? I'd like to benchmark it myself... > "Beating C in Scientific Computing Applications -- On the Behavior and > Performance of Lisp, Part I" > It's for a specific set of applications / operations, but I believe you'll > You can find it near the top of this page: -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
From: "Isaac Gouy" <ig...@yahoo.com>
Date: 11 Oct 2006 08:39:57 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 11 2006 11:39 am
Subject: Re: references about the beauty of functional programming ?
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
From: Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 05:24:15 +0100
Local: Mon, Oct 9 2006 12:24 am
Subject: Re: references about the beauty of functional programming ?
ig...@yahoo.com wrote: Developing applications by myself and as part of a team. >> OCaml certainly scales better than C++, both to bigger projects and to >> larger groups of programmers. > What experience/data do you base that assertion upon? For example, I wrote a vector graphics library in C++ that became When working as a team, I've often had problems working concurrently on C++ >> For non-trivial tasks, OCaml is usually much faster than C++. Yes. I am referring to tasks sufficiently complicated that development time > I read C/C++ not C++ > For non-trivial tasks (whatever that means) is OCaml usually much limits optimisation. > What experience/data do you base that assertion upon? My vector graphics library (soft real time) is 5x faster for worst case (which is the important case) than the C++. Mathematica is written in C and dozens of authors have spent years -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
From: ig...@yahoo.com
Date: 9 Oct 2006 09:50:17 -0700
Local: Mon, Oct 9 2006 12:50 pm
Subject: Re: references about the beauty of functional programming ?
Jon Harrop wrote: Perhaps you did a better implementation the second time, because it was > ig...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> OCaml certainly scales better than C++, both to bigger projects and to > >> larger groups of programmers. > > What experience/data do you base that assertion upon? > Developing applications by myself and as part of a team. > For example, I wrote a vector graphics library in C++ that became the second time? > When working as a team, I've often had problems working concurrently on C++ anything to do with the colour of my shoes. (Actually don't bother - I'm really not interested in the problems you had working with C++) Does that mean you /have/ re-implemented the core of Mathematica and /it does/ run just as fast? (And do you have just /the core of Mathematica/ in C to compare against?) You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
From: Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 01:53:24 +0100
Local: Mon, Oct 9 2006 8:53 pm
Subject: Re: references about the beauty of functional programming ?
ig...@yahoo.com wrote: Absolutely. I wrote several better implementations in OCaml in less time > Jon Harrop wrote: >> For example, I wrote a vector graphics library in C++ that became >> unmaintainable because alterations that I wanted to make were >> prohibitively difficult to implement without breaking the code. In the >> OCaml implementation, I was able to make changes to the OCaml codebase >> and fix everything easily thanks to its static checking. I've had similar >> experiences with a variety of tasks. > Perhaps you did a better implementation the second time, because it was than it would have taken to write one good one in C++. That is why developing in OCaml results in faster code. In this case, it was not clear which of several possible approaches would be most efficient. >> Mathematica is written in C and dozens of authors have spent years Yes and yes. >> optimising it. However, you can implement the core of Mathematica in only >> a thousand lines of ML and it will run just as fast. With a little more >> work, you can get it running much faster than the real thing. > Does that mean you /have/ re-implemented the core of Mathematica and -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
From: "Isaac Gouy" <ig...@yahoo.com>
Date: 10 Oct 2006 11:07:27 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 10 2006 2:07 pm
Subject: Re: references about the beauty of functional programming ?
Let's try that again - did you first write the C++ implementations and
then write the OCaml implementations? Perhaps you were smart enough not to make the same mistakes with OCaml that you previously made with C++. > >> Mathematica is written in C and dozens of authors have spent years > > Does that mean you /have/ re-implemented the core of Mathematica and > Yes and yes. You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
From: Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:24:44 +0100
Local: Tues, Oct 10 2006 6:24 pm
Subject: Re: references about the beauty of functional programming ?
Isaac Gouy wrote: Yes. Then they were equivalent. Then I thought of an improvement. I made the > Jon Harrop wrote: >> Absolutely. I wrote several better implementations in OCaml in less time >> than it would have taken to write one good one in C++. That is why >> developing in OCaml results in faster code. In this case, it was not >> clear which of several possible approaches would be most efficient. > Let's try that again - did you first write the C++ implementations and improvement to the OCaml easily but was unable to make the improvement to the C++ because the conceptual change required a large number of different changes to the source code that could not be done incrementally and could not be done simultaneously because C++ is too fragile. > Perhaps you were smart enough not They weren't mistakes. C++ code simply isn't as maintainable and cannot be > to make the same mistakes with OCaml that you previously made with C++. developed as quickly. >> Yes and yes. Yes, exactly. > Does that mean you /have/ it running much faster than the real thing? -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
From: "Isaac Gouy" <ig...@yahoo.com>
Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:30:50 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 10 2006 8:30 pm
Subject: Re: references about the beauty of functional programming ?
Was it that C++ is too fragile, or that the C++ programs you wrote were
too fragile. > > Perhaps you were smart enough not > They weren't mistakes. C++ code simply isn't as maintainable and cannot be > >> Yes and yes. > > Does that mean you /have/ it running much faster than the real thing? > Yes, exactly. You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
From: Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:53:06 +0100
Local: Wed, Oct 11 2006 5:53 am
Subject: Re: references about the beauty of functional programming ?
Isaac Gouy wrote: Objectively, forms of static checking provided by the OCaml language and not > Jon Harrop wrote: >> Yes. Then they were equivalent. Then I thought of an improvement. I made >> the improvement to the OCaml easily but was unable to make the >> improvement to the C++ because the conceptual change required a large >> number of different changes to the source code that could not be done >> incrementally and could not be done simultaneously because C++ is too >> fragile. > Was it that C++ is too fragile, or that the C++ programs you wrote were by C++ facilitated the development. >> >> Yes and yes. The work was done under NDA. >> > Does that mean you /have/ it running much faster than the real thing? >> Yes, exactly. > I'm surprised that you haven't listed comparison timings. -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||