Yehuda Katz and Steve Klabnik Are Joining the Rust Core Team

Post by igouy » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 7:43 AM UTC

imanaccount247 wrote: post #80

jakevn wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Rust code is both safer and faster at the cost of more keystrokes. I'm not certain the point of writing unsafe code in Haskell when there are better tools for the job. Haskell is fast enough as is and using it to hammer screws just reeks of wrong tool for the job.

Your comment says absolutely nothing, and that appears to be the goal. What is the point of writing any code in any language? It is a benchmark, the point of it is to write the fastest code you can. You aren't obligated to write lower level code in haskell, nobody has a gun to your head. So why do you pretend it is a problem, and claim other languages are "better tools" for that job despite haskell clearly being very…

Post by imanaccount247 » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 8:23 AM UTC

igouy wrote: post #90

imanaccount247 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also, isn't regex-dna using libpcre? It is in virtually every language on the shootout. That's one of the reasons the shootout is so terrible. A regex benchmark doesn't tell you much of anything unless the task itself is to write the regex engine. >I love Haskell, but I still don't think it occupies the same space as Rust. Neither do I. I am simply correcting this weird meme that "haskell is really slow and the shoo…

> A regex benchmark doesn't tell you much of anything… And yet, the programs don't all perform the same. One regex task doesn't tell you much of anything because so much can be different with a different task. Then again, people are usually surprised by V8 and Irregexp. The GHC version has been updated so many times since the last programs were contributed, that I hope the code would look better if it was written to…

Post by coldtea » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 10:12 AM UTC

codygman wrote: post #61

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) Even in that benchmark, Haskell is over twice as slow as Rust on average. (2) The Haskell code is nowhere near idiomatic. It is still useful to know that Haskell can be quite fast if necessary, but it likely does not reflect what your actual experience using Haskell would be.

> (2) The Haskell code is nowhere near idiomatic This isn't meant as a personal attack firstly. Secondly, I've heard this said more than a few times lately and am generally curious: Do you know which Haskell examples are idiomatic, which aren't, and why? I feel like in the case of some it's just parroting someone elses argument.

Post by coldtea » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 10:19 AM UTC

imanaccount247 wrote: post #70

codygman wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (2) The Haskell code is nowhere near idiomatic This isn't meant as a personal attack firstly. Secondly, I've heard this said more than a few times lately and am generally curious: Do you know which Haskell examples are idiomatic, which aren't, and why? I feel like in the case of some it's just parroting someone elses argument.

>I feel like in the case of some it's just parroting someone elses argument. It usually is. The reality is that like most memes like this, there's a grain of truth at the center, but most of the people repeating it don't know where the truth ends and the exaggeration begins. Regex-dna is using low level ByteString operations to squeeze out a bit of extra performance. This makes it quite a bit longer and would rarely…

Post by tome » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 10:34 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #96

imanaccount247 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should know it at least a tiny bit though, or else you lump perfectly "idiomatic" functions in with low level functions that aren't often used and pretend they're a problem. How is a indexing an array without a bounds check somehow counter to lazy evaluation or functional programming? It is the exact same thing as indexing it normally, just without checking the length.

How is indexing an array OK with functional programming of the level of purity Haskell strives for (not to mention without bounds checking)? In "Real World Haskell" they advise you to forgo of arrays, and even has a chapter "Life without arrays", saying "arrays and hash tables are often used as collections indexed by key, and in Haskell we use trees for that purpose".