News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:When Haskell Is Not faster than C by jeremyjh on Monday January 21, 2013 @12:55PM (#5092669)
I've never worked on a project where my job was to create 256 threads. Instead, I would be tasked with processing lots of requests or datasets in parallel. If Haskell provides convenient and idiomatic ways to do this with lightweight threads that C does not, then C is effectively slower. If C has a commonly used and available library to implement this same approach - then maybe its faster. The whole point is we are comparing implementations of a programming task.
Re:When Haskell Is Not faster than C by pekk on Monday January 21, 2013 @03:22PM (#5093504)
C doesn't impose a specific threading model. So a C threading benchmark is specific to the library you are using. And if you choose a heavyweight thread library to compare to a language which is not using heavyweight threads, it is not an apples to apples comparison. Arguably it could be, if C imposed a specific threading model, which it does not.

You are comparing implementations, not languages

Re:When Haskell Is Not faster than C by jeremyjh on Monday January 21, 2013 @04:25PM (#5093840)
Yes and that was my point. The benchmark is a comparison of implementations - compilers, run times and libraries. I am not sure how you would benchmark a language.
Re:When Haskell Is Not faster than C by ibotty on Monday January 21, 2013 @03:54PM (#5093715)
is there a nice lightweight threading library in c that distributes _many_ small threads on _few_ (not one) posix threads? if so: please tell me. i am genuinely interested.