Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Languages revisited. Functional language beats C for number cruncing

Author: Graham Laight

Date: 05:08:35 01/10/03

Go up one level in this thread


On January 10, 2003 at 08:01:45, Dan Andersson wrote:

>A couple of postings on comp.lang.scheme implemented the CoyoteGulch benchmarks
>in Scheme. And lo and behold BigLoo produced faster code for the numerical
>benchmark. One might object that since BigLoo emits C or Java bytecode it isn't
>really faster. But the amount of automated program transformations that are
>applied is huge. For a coder to do the same thing would be like trying to
>outperform a spreadsheet. And the C code is inhuman in nature. And the question
>arises: Why on earth would one use C++ or Java? Both are verbose and terribly
>low level compared to lambda calculus.

There's obviously a sufficiently large market for mathematical languages -
probably not quite a large enough market to make it worthwhile to produce a
language to write chess programs in.

-g

>MvH Dan Andersson



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.