top | item 40873699 (no title) bdahz | 1 year ago How is the performance when compared to similar implementations in C/C++ or Rust? discuss order hn newest lazamar|1 year ago I’d say unbeatable!The goal was simplicity of implementation and code clarity. For this kind of thing I say Haskell performs the best. bdahz|1 year ago For the simplicity of implementation and code clarity, I need to know how much I need to pay for it.If the Haskell implementation is 3x slower than C/C++/Rust implementation, it would be acceptable.If it's 30x slower, I would rather choose C/C++/Rust even the implementation won't be simple.If it is even possible to be 3x faster than C/C++/Rust, then why not the mainstream programmers adopt Haskell everywhere? load replies (2) mrkeen|1 year ago That wasn't really the spirit of the question as I read it. 'Performance' has a narrower definition than that. load replies (1) unknown|1 year ago [deleted]
lazamar|1 year ago I’d say unbeatable!The goal was simplicity of implementation and code clarity. For this kind of thing I say Haskell performs the best. bdahz|1 year ago For the simplicity of implementation and code clarity, I need to know how much I need to pay for it.If the Haskell implementation is 3x slower than C/C++/Rust implementation, it would be acceptable.If it's 30x slower, I would rather choose C/C++/Rust even the implementation won't be simple.If it is even possible to be 3x faster than C/C++/Rust, then why not the mainstream programmers adopt Haskell everywhere? load replies (2) mrkeen|1 year ago That wasn't really the spirit of the question as I read it. 'Performance' has a narrower definition than that. load replies (1)
bdahz|1 year ago For the simplicity of implementation and code clarity, I need to know how much I need to pay for it.If the Haskell implementation is 3x slower than C/C++/Rust implementation, it would be acceptable.If it's 30x slower, I would rather choose C/C++/Rust even the implementation won't be simple.If it is even possible to be 3x faster than C/C++/Rust, then why not the mainstream programmers adopt Haskell everywhere? load replies (2)
mrkeen|1 year ago That wasn't really the spirit of the question as I read it. 'Performance' has a narrower definition than that. load replies (1)
lazamar|1 year ago
The goal was simplicity of implementation and code clarity. For this kind of thing I say Haskell performs the best.
bdahz|1 year ago
If the Haskell implementation is 3x slower than C/C++/Rust implementation, it would be acceptable.
If it's 30x slower, I would rather choose C/C++/Rust even the implementation won't be simple.
If it is even possible to be 3x faster than C/C++/Rust, then why not the mainstream programmers adopt Haskell everywhere?
mrkeen|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]