What’s that mean? The last part.
"It is easy to reason about strict pure functional language performance. It is uniformly the worst-case."
-
-
-
Consider: > foldr const 99 [1..1000000] Under strict evaluation, the asymptotic is the worst case — linear in the list length. Under non-strict evaluation, it is O(1). Strict evaluation is "easy to reason about" because it is always the worst case.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Can you say the same about lazy and space as strict and performance?
-
It wasn't me who originally said it, but I don't think so. I can think of counter-examples.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think this objection is almost completely theoretical -- your example below is not code anyone would ever write -- whereas in Haskell (at least in my experience) one often writes real code that has a big space leak
-
Various folds which lazily explore "solution space" is exactly the code you should write in Haskell. In strict language you only wish you could write something like that, instead you have to think about operational stuff. Way too early.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.