 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Delphi is (was) a pretty decent language and IDE, ahead of its time in its
day. Alas, Borland did everything possible to screw it, including losing key
developers, releasing several buggy/unusable versions in a row, a Linux
fiasco, ignoring bug reports, remaining completely oblivious to essential
features like Unicode, 64 bits, generics... etc, bloating IDE and slowing it
down to a crawl with Java and NET crap, and even breaking parts that were
working at one time, like the help system. It remains to be seen if
Embarcadero will support CodeGear enough to put all the broken pieces
togerther and catch up to the 21st century (D2009 is out with unicode), but
I'm not holding my breath.
If you mean object Pascal, then FPC/Lazarus is trying to be what Delphi
couldn't, but it's a long way off.
Still, both Delphi and FPC are usable. If you are a single developer,
hobbyist, use whatever gets the job done. But as far as job prospects go,
I'd say even Haskell has a better future.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Still, both Delphi and FPC are usable. If you are a single developer,
> hobbyist, use whatever gets the job done. But as far as job prospects go,
> I'd say even Haskell has a better future.
...I don't even know whether to be flattered or insulted. o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>
>> Still, both Delphi and FPC are usable. If you are a single developer,
>> hobbyist, use whatever gets the job done. But as far as job prospects go,
>> I'd say even Haskell has a better future.
>
> ....I don't even know whether to be flattered or insulted. o_O
>
hehe, so u think Haskell is a good programming language?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
any suggestions besides Haskell? (I'm checking its website right now).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> hehe, so u think Haskell is a good programming language?
Depends on what you want to program.
If you want to write device drivers... uh... you should probably use C
or assembly. (Haskell can do it, but it's not the best choice.)
If you want to write a bleeding-edge 3D computer game, you should
probably use C++. (That's where all the libraries are.)
If you want to write a database application, SQL is going to be easier. ;-)
If you want to write complex mathematical algorithms, or just something
that involves lots of complex processing, Haskell is probably a good fit.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Haskell? (I'm checking its website right now).
Another potential convert lost... ._.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> If you want to write complex mathematical algorithms, or just something
> that involves lots of complex processing, Haskell is probably a good fit.
One of the most demanding programming tasks in mathematical software is
matrix handling. We are talking about *huge* matrices and their operations
(such as multiplication or inverting) which the math program should handle
as efficiently as possible (both memorywise and speedwise). Quite many
mathematical tasks and other algorithms can be reduced to handling
enormous matrices and their operations.
If I'm not mistaken, a more or less standard benchmark for math software
is to measure how fast it can multiply and invert humongous matrices.
How well does Haskell fit this? Can it be used to handle enormous
matrices efficiently and perform operations to them as fast as possible?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> any suggestions besides Haskell? (I'm checking its website right now).
Well, if you want to learn what the industry is using, Java and C# are
probably sure bets.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If you want to write complex mathematical algorithms, or just something
>> that involves lots of complex processing, Haskell is probably a good fit.
>
> One of the most demanding programming tasks in mathematical software is
> matrix handling.
That wasn't precisely what I meant by "complex processing". (I was
thinking about tasks like parsing text files, chasing dependencies,
implementing complex wire protocols, reading binary formats, etc.)
But sure, your statement seems valid to me.
> We are talking about *huge* matrices and their operations
> (such as multiplication or inverting) which the math program should handle
> as efficiently as possible (both memorywise and speedwise). Quite many
> mathematical tasks and other algorithms can be reduced to handling
> enormous matrices and their operations.
> If I'm not mistaken, a more or less standard benchmark for math software
> is to measure how fast it can multiply and invert humongous matrices.
>
> How well does Haskell fit this? Can it be used to handle enormous
> matrices efficiently and perform operations to them as fast as possible?
Depends how you implement it.
There is a standard package called hmatrix that gives you a
Haskell-style interface to the external LAPACK and GSL libraries. (By
"Haskell-style", I mean the interface works in the customary style of
Haskell, so it's more than just a thin veneer over the underlying C or
whatever it is, and it plays nice with the rest of the language.)
Presumably the speed of this is roughly the speed of the underlying
libraries.
Haskell will soon be getting the so-called "Data Parallel Arrays"
extension, that provides a trivial syntax for processing arrays in
parallel. (Not in-place though.)
Haskell already has the ability to construct C-like arrays of basic
types which are mutable in-place - although I doubt anything you or I
could code by hand is going to compare to something like LAPACK which
must have been optimised by half the PhDs on Earth by now.
If extreme numerical performance is your goal, 3rd party libraries are
probably your best bet. (Presumably this goes for any programming
language - other people are way smarter!) But it could be interesting to
see how fast native Haskell is or isn't.
I had a look at the Great Language Shootout. The most math-heavy
benchmark I could see is spectural-norm, which appears to use lots of
matrix/vector multiplication. Fortran is fastest, C++ is 2.8% slower,
and Haskell is 7.0% slower. Haskell also uses 64 KB more than C++ (=1%
more).
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> any suggestions besides Haskell? (I'm checking its website right now).
C#
I can recommend it from both experience and from its pedigree.
You see there is a very clever Dannish chap called Anders Hejlsberg.
Anders wrote the product that became Turbo Pascal. Then he designed
Delphi. Then he left Borland, joined Microsoft and was the lead
architect/designer of C# and a fair bit of '.Net'.
I think you will find that C# is great in itself and particularly if you
like Delphi ideas but not the commercial mess it has become.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
