Newest at the top
| 2024-11-14 16:01:46 +0100 | <bailsman> | It has to actually be stored and loaded from memory to be a fair comparison. |
| 2024-11-14 16:01:11 +0100 | <bailsman> | I need to benchmark the list already existing |
| 2024-11-14 16:01:05 +0100 | <bailsman> | Hey, no, that's cheating. Then I've written my benchmark wrong |
| 2024-11-14 16:00:40 +0100 | <geekosaur> | in the optimal case, the list is never constructed as such, elements are fed directly to map as they are created |
| 2024-11-14 16:00:07 +0100 | <geekosaur> | bailsman, construction of the list vs. mapping through the list |
| 2024-11-14 15:59:43 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Bowuigi> GHC does dark magic to not actually use a linked list |
| 2024-11-14 15:59:42 +0100 | <bailsman> | I am just doing [SmallRecord] -> [SmallRecord] by updating a field in the record |
| 2024-11-14 15:59:34 +0100 | <geekosaur> | ph88, that's what I meant by style but also a mediawiki upgrade is what started the whole outage thing |
| 2024-11-14 15:59:10 +0100 | <ph88> | wiki got a makeover? i remember being it uglier |
| 2024-11-14 15:59:04 +0100 | <bailsman> | I don't know what any of those words mean |
| 2024-11-14 15:58:44 +0100 | <geekosaur> | if your generation and consumption are written correctly, they get pipelined |
| 2024-11-14 15:58:25 +0100 | <bailsman> | Or does it turn into an in-place algorithm? |
| 2024-11-14 15:58:09 +0100 | <bailsman> | What do you mean by tight loop? Surely it still has to allocate all the elements for the new list? |
| 2024-11-14 15:57:50 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Bowuigi> Gérard Huet's pearl "The Zipper" is also good if you don't mind OCaml |
| 2024-11-14 15:56:57 +0100 | <geekosaur> | it uses a tree as the example data structure, where most of them focus on lists which are the easiest case |
| 2024-11-14 15:56:30 +0100 | <geekosaur> | https://wiki.haskell.org/Zipper |
| 2024-11-14 15:56:30 +0100 | <bailsman> | Awesome! Thank you to whoever fixed it |
| 2024-11-14 15:56:29 +0100 | <geekosaur> | actually hgolden in #h-i said there are still some style issues |
| 2024-11-14 15:56:16 +0100 | <geekosaur> | just found that, yes |
| 2024-11-14 15:56:08 +0100 | <hellwolf> | (wiki has been fixed) |
| 2024-11-14 15:56:06 +0100 | <bailsman> | I have some parts right now that use random access. But was thinking maybe I don't want to pay a 4x performance penalty just for random access. |
| 2024-11-14 15:55:53 +0100 | <geekosaur> | sadly the first reference that comes to mind is on the wiki… |
| 2024-11-14 15:55:42 +0100 | <ph88> | no |
| 2024-11-14 15:55:38 +0100 | <geekosaur> | ph88, are you aware of tree zippers? |
| 2024-11-14 15:55:14 +0100 | <ph88> | when i have some code more or less in the shape of this thing https://hackage.haskell.org/package/containers-0.7/docs/Data-Tree.html#t:Tree how can i write code that changes `a` with State but there are two points to change it, when going down (into the leafs) and going up (back to the root)? also known as visitor pattern |
| 2024-11-14 15:55:03 +0100 | <geekosaur> | it actually compiles down to a tight loop in most cases, not the C-style linked list you might expect |
| 2024-11-14 15:54:16 +0100 | <geekosaur> | right, map's going to be one of those cases that [] will work very well for |
| 2024-11-14 15:54:11 +0100 | <hellwolf> | "data Array i e" is also under rated. |
| 2024-11-14 15:54:06 +0100 | hgolden | (~hgolden@2603:8000:9d00:3ed1:6c70:1ac0:d127:74dd) hgolden |
| 2024-11-14 15:53:38 +0100 | <bailsman> | Data.Vector.Map over a vector is consistently 4x slower than regular map over []. (Data.Map is 10x slower) |
| 2024-11-14 15:53:14 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Bowuigi> Data.Map is the first one that comes to mind |
| 2024-11-14 15:52:55 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Bowuigi> Have you tried any functional random access data structures? |
| 2024-11-14 15:52:00 +0100 | <bailsman> | I thought I needed to do a lot of random indexing. But, now I'm not sure if I shouldn't instead redesign everything so that it does not require random access. |
| 2024-11-14 15:51:04 +0100 | ph88 | (~ph88@2a02:8109:9e26:c800:7ee4:dffc:4616:9e2a) |
| 2024-11-14 15:50:40 +0100 | misterfish | (~misterfis@31-161-39-137.biz.kpn.net) misterfish |
| 2024-11-14 15:50:37 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Bowuigi> Reasoning imperatively in functional languages leads to bad performance in general |
| 2024-11-14 15:50:23 +0100 | <geekosaur> | allocation, gc, and iteration are all optimized because it's so common |
| 2024-11-14 15:49:51 +0100 | <hellwolf> | I mean, if you need to do a log of random indexing, it got to be slow. but for stream processing, it is probably the most efficient |
| 2024-11-14 15:49:41 +0100 | <geekosaur> | if all you're doing is iterating through them, consider that ghc is optimized for that case: think of a list as a loop encoded as data |
| 2024-11-14 15:48:48 +0100 | <bailsman> | Plain old lists are consistently the fastest. I find that somewhat confusing, since in imperative languages linked lists are often slow. |
| 2024-11-14 15:47:02 +0100 | billchenchina | (~billchenc@2a0d:2580:ff0c:1:e3c9:c52b:a429:5bfe) billchenchina |
| 2024-11-14 15:41:12 +0100 | weary-traveler | (~user@user/user363627) (Quit: Konversation terminated!) |
| 2024-11-14 15:39:55 +0100 | Cadey | (~cadey@perl/impostor/xe) (Quit: WeeChat 4.4.2) |
| 2024-11-14 15:36:41 +0100 | yaroot | (~yaroot@2400:4052:ac0:d901:1cf4:2aff:fe51:c04c) yaroot |
| 2024-11-14 15:36:27 +0100 | yaroot | (~yaroot@2400:4052:ac0:d901:1cf4:2aff:fe51:c04c) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2024-11-14 15:35:59 +0100 | alexherbo2 | (~alexherbo@2a02-8440-3313-668b-a9ec-921f-0511-ee3f.rev.sfr.net) alexherbo2 |
| 2024-11-14 15:35:45 +0100 | ash3en | (~Thunderbi@149.222.147.110) (Client Quit) |
| 2024-11-14 15:35:40 +0100 | alexherbo2 | (~alexherbo@2a02-8440-3313-668b-a9ec-921f-0511-ee3f.rev.sfr.net) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2024-11-14 15:35:09 +0100 | ash3en | (~Thunderbi@149.222.147.110) ash3en |
| 2024-11-14 15:30:28 +0100 | mari-estel | (~mari-este@user/mari-estel) mari-estel |