nemesis wrote:

> yes.  Something more is getting in the way.

Like Warp suggested, maybe his Perl coding just sucks for some reason?

>> Anyway, whatever. My point is that Haskell isn't nearly as slow as
>> everybody thinks it is.
> 
> It's not slow at all.  It's just not nearly as fast as C/C++, but then, few are.
> And fewer are as high level and concise as Haskell. :)

Heh. The Haskell bods are currently real excited because Haskell is 
ranked 3rd is the new parallel benchmark table. (But then, most of the 
other languages haven't submitted any parallel code yet.) It's lagging 
behind C++, but just faster than C.

Of course, as somebody pointed out, the C and C++ implementations are 
using OS threads, while Haskell is using lightweight Haskell threads, 
"so it's not a fair comparison". Debate that if you will...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>
> > yes.  Something more is getting in the way.
>
> Like Warp suggested, maybe his Perl coding just sucks for some reason?

ah, that's it!  The thing between the chair and the keyboard...

> Heh. The Haskell bods are currently real excited because Haskell is
> ranked 3rd is the new parallel benchmark table. (But then, most of the
> other languages haven't submitted any parallel code yet.) It's lagging
> behind C++, but just faster than C.

I read the thread in the Haskell mailing-list.  Checking it out, both g++ and
ghc are behind some newcomer:  ATS.
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all

Yet Another High Level Language with C syntax and performance and functional
programming semantics.  Joining D for candidates for next C/C++.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Yet Another High Level Language with C syntax and performance and functional
> programming semantics.  Joining D for candidates for next C/C++.

  Like D (and a bunch of others), also probably doomed to failure.

  Many people have attempted in making a "better" C/C++, and many have
failed. Some attempts have good ideas, but they just don't get popular,
no matter how much they are advertised. Basically nobody knows what D is.
Another good example is Objective C, which has a rather small market
(which is growing a bit due to the iPhone, though).

  Not all attempts have failed though. Java and C# are examples of
successful ones. (Although in their cases the changes from C/C++ have
been a bit more radical.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Another good example is Objective C, which has a rather small market
> (which is growing a bit due to the iPhone, though).

I thought all the NeXT and thus Mac OSX stuff was programmed in 
Objective-C? (Which was around even before the NeXT, also.)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

> Basically nobody knows what D is.

I recall seeing a language floating around (a *long* time ago!) called 
E, and another called F.

IIRC, the language before C was called B, so it's quite possible that 
more than one person has come up with a "better than C" language and 
called it "D" or "E" or whatever... ;-)

>   Not all attempts have failed though. Java and C# are examples of
> successful ones. (Although in their cases the changes from C/C++ have
> been a bit more radical.)

The conspicuous thing is that both of those languages are backed be huge 
well-known corporations...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Languages like python and ruby abuse of their dynamic nature by going
> beyond just dynamic typing and allowing all kinds of funky and slow
> runtime
> metaprogramming.  A native compiler has no chance here.

But also, languages like python and ruby are often used where performance
doesn't really matter. Last I checked, the de-facto implementation (CPython
interpreter) doesn't even do constant folding.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Another good example is Objective C, which has a rather small market
>> (which is growing a bit due to the iPhone, though).
> 
> I thought all the NeXT and thus Mac OSX stuff was programmed in
> Objective-C? (Which was around even before the NeXT, also.)

Yes. All apps on Mac are made in Objective-C. Non-GUI Objective-C code from
a Mac application can probably run unmodified on the iPhone. It's just the
GUI frameworks that changed completely.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> IIRC, the language before C was called B, so it's quite possible that
> more than one person has come up with a "better than C" language and
> called it "D" or "E" or whatever... ;-)

Do you know why C# is called that way?

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > IIRC, the language before C was called B, so it's quite possible that
> > more than one person has come up with a "better than C" language and
> > called it "D" or "E" or whatever... ;-)

> Do you know why C# is called that way?

  Well, when it was a pretty new thing, I heard that # in the name was
actually four + symbols, so it's C++++, ie. "C# is to C++ what C++ is
to C".

  I don't know if it was just a joke.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Well, when it was a pretty new thing, I heard that # in the name was
> actually four + symbols, so it's C++++, ie. "C# is to C++ what C++ is
> to C".

Given that it's pronounced "C Sharp", I expect it's because it's half a 
note higher than C. Like, on a piano keyboard.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message