 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> OK, well I just wrote a small C program to do the same thing... and it
> segfaulted at me.
I give up. For some reason trying to teach you something seems
completely pointless.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Based in this information, I conceed defeat. I have no idea what's gone
> wrong here.
I was going to suggest earlier "maybe he's evaluating the stuff lazily and
doesn't realize it", but then I deleted it half-written thinking "surely I'm
not going to guess better than Andrew what his Haskell code is doing." :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I give up. For some reason trying to teach you something seems
> completely pointless.
Now now. He *did* say he got it working. :-) And you must admit, printf()
isn't the most intuitive way of printing something.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Er, no. Just tried it with the release version. The numbers are a fraction
> of a second slower still. Either way, two equivilent formulations of the
> program have wildly different runtimes.
What's the difference between them?
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I give up. For some reason trying to teach you something seems
>> completely pointless.
>
> Now now. He *did* say he got it working. :-) And you must admit,
> printf() isn't the most intuitive way of printing something.
No, it seems Warp is right.
I have conclusively demonstrated that Haskell is many orders of
magnitude slower than C even for a trivial program.
After all these years of using Haskell, I thought I understood how it
worked. I read all the papers about all the sophisticated optimisations
the compiler performs. And I felt sure I knew what I was doing. But,
clearly, I don't.
I have wasted 4 years of my life on Haskell. It is so beautiful and
eligant, I wanted it to be the answer, and I blindly believed that it
would be. Clearly it isn't.
The irony, the sheer irony of it, is that the whole reason I was timing
this stuff in the first place was that I was just about to reach into
the source code of the compiler to try to tweak its performance. It is
obvious to me now that I shouldn't be let anywhere near an actual
compiler. Better to leave that to the real experts.
It seems I've been deluding myself. All these years, I thought I was
some kind of master programmer. What, just because I've been writing
programs for 20 years, that makes me an expert? Just because I wrote
some trivial raytracer and it kinda worked, that means I'm good at
programming? Who the hell am I kidding?
I am now the laughing stock of this forum. Nobody is ever doing to take
anything I say about Haskell seriously ever again. Even better, when I
asked about this in the Haskell forum, I got yelled at for being a
troll. (Again.)
So, not only do I fail at programming, I fail at human interaction. It
seems everywhere I do, people yell at me for being immature and
outspoken. Maybe I should just take myself away somewhere and figure out
WTF is *wrong* with me. I fail at life.
I'm sorry.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/16/2009 1:54 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I give up. For some reason trying to teach you something seems
>>> completely pointless.
>>
>> Now now. He *did* say he got it working. :-) And you must admit,
>> printf() isn't the most intuitive way of printing something.
>
> No, it seems Warp is right.
Nah, he's just fed up. That happens with people, but we love him[1] anyway!
> I have conclusively demonstrated that Haskell is many orders of
> magnitude slower than C even for a trivial program.
No, you haven't. What you *have* demonstrated is that your particular
program runs slower than an alternative implementation in a completely
different environment.
I can't say what the slowdown is, or why it's occurring, unless I saw
your actual Haskell code. Most likely there's a very good reason for
the performance hit.
> I have wasted 4 years of my life on Haskell. It is so beautiful and
> eligant, I wanted it to be the answer, and I blindly believed that it
> would be. Clearly it isn't.
"When you're a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail."
The fact is that Haskell, like every other language out there, is a tool
- a tool that helps you get things done. It doesn't do the same things
C does, or do things the same way, because it *isn't* C. It's good at
(and for) different things[2].
Sometimes, you need C. Sometimes you need Haskell. Spending your time
learning it and using it doesn't mean you've wasted your time.
Stephen R Donaldson is fond of quoting, "When you become a master of one
thing, you become a master of all things." This isn't to say that by
learning Haskell you're a master programmer in any language; but the act
of mastering something so complex teaches you how to master anything you
set yourself to.
Never count the mastery of a skill as a waste, even if it's a skill you
never end up using.
> The irony, the sheer irony of it, is that the whole reason I was timing
> this stuff in the first place was that I was just about to reach into
> the source code of the compiler to try to tweak its performance. It is
Actually, that's a great idea. There's no better way to learn than by
doing.
> obvious to me now that I shouldn't be let anywhere near an actual
> compiler. Better to leave that to the real experts.
Do you know what an "expert" really is? An "ex" is a has-been, and a
"spert" is a drip under pressure!
Anyway, how do you think the "experts" got to be that way? By doing
exactly what you're doing right now!
> It seems I've been deluding myself. All these years, I thought I was
> some kind of master programmer.
Well, you might have been deluding yourself in that, yes. But there's
nothing wrong with aspirations :)
> I am now the laughing stock of this forum.
No, you're not. You're our friend and, yes, sometimes we laugh at you -
but we laugh at pretty much everyone. As Scott Adams says, "Everyone is
an idiot at something." That means that everyone gets to be laughed at
:) Take it in stride, and join in the laughter yourself - you might
find it cathartic.
> seems everywhere I do, people yell at me for being immature and
They yell at you for being immature? Doesn't that make them... immature?
> I fail at life.
Not yet, you haven't. Everyone has minor stumbling blocks, but they
really are minor.
Besides, if you're talking about failing at something you love, then
you're in good company. Do you know why Henry Ford's first automobile
company was dissolved? It was because the car they made was lower
quality and higher price than he liked. In other words, it was a
question of optimization ;)
Anyway, it's late here, & I should get some sleep.
[1]See the thread titled "you & me right now, warp"
[2]If Haskell can be embedded, I'm thinking it would make a great patch
for POV-Ray. Something like this:
#declare h_func = haskell { "..." }
#declare val = h_func(1,2,3)
Anywhere POV takes functions, it could use a Haskell function.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:54:56 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>I have conclusively demonstrated that Haskell is many orders of
>magnitude slower than C even for a trivial program.
But what about non trivial problems?
I'm sure that Haskell was not developed for adding lots of numbers. (Not
counting the fact that is what all computers do ;) ) What does it do well, why
not try checking it against C++ with something it is designed for?
As for wasting you time, if you enjoyed yourself the time was not wasted.
Remember the old saying. Don't get depressed, get even.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> Uhuh. And are you by any chance running this on an AMD Mobile AlthonXP
>> 1400+?
>
> I have hard time believing my computer is 30 times faster than that.
> Twice or three times as fast I could still maybe swallow, but not 30 times.
> (Athlons are rather notorious for being much faster than the Pentium4 line
> with the same clockrates.)
>
P4 Core2 Duo here,
1 billion iterations, C#
1000000000 Int Sum Time: 00:00:02.2499280
1000000000 Double Sum Time: 00:00:03.3905165
1000000000,1000000000 Double Convert Time: 00:00:03.7655045
^^ Interestingly the float to int conversion uses an MMX instruction.
Apparently it is very costly to do it without MMX, the CLR JIT uses the
MMX instruction regardless, so I have no comparison for the non-MMX
instruction. But, the difference is negligible between floating point
operations and integer.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> I give up. For some reason trying to teach you something seems
> >> completely pointless.
> >
> > Now now. He *did* say he got it working. :-) And you must admit,
> > printf() isn't the most intuitive way of printing something.
> No, it seems Warp is right.
> I have conclusively demonstrated that Haskell is many orders of
> magnitude slower than C even for a trivial program.
I was not talking about Haskell vs. the world in my comment quoted
above. I was talking about you trying to do it in *C* and having your
program crash, after all the trouble I have gone in the past to try to
teach you safe programming practices in C++, as a better alternative to C.
I got exasperated because I thought that maybe, just maybe you had
learned something about the C/C++ family of languages, and perhaps learned
to make working programs in C++ with less effort (than in C, that is).
But no. When you want to try something with something else than Haskell,
you go once again back to C and have your program crash on you. It feels
like all my teaching efforts went completely to waste.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slime wrote:
>> Er, no. Just tried it with the release version. The numbers are a fraction
>> of a second slower still. Either way, two equivilent formulations of the
>> program have wildly different runtimes.
>
> What's the difference between them?
One relies on automatic list fusion, the other is hand-fused. It turns
out GHC doesn't automatically fuse left folds. Since the entire program
is a left fold, I guess that'll be the problem then...
If my assumption that all list operations do get fused had been correct,
the two programs *would* be almost completely equivilent. (One with more
overloading than the other, possibly contributing to a few percent
overhead.)
This is what happens when you *assume* you know what you're talking
about; you get caught out.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
