Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 18:09:49 11/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
Off topic. You may be surprised, but the most realistic scenario of the manned Mars mission uses exactly Apollo-era (i.e. mid-sixties) technology -- mainly Saturn V-like heavy booster on chemical fuel, not some futuristic propulsion system. And total program cost will be less than inflation-adjusted cost of Apollo. Search the web on "Mars Direct" and "Zubrin". Thanks, Eugene On November 15, 2002 at 18:07:52, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On November 14, 2002 at 23:35:14, Dan Andersson wrote: > >>What are you trying to prove? Lazy evaluation, in the CS sense, can be >>optimized. As can most anything. Using well known transformations. A language >>implementation can have some implementation detail that makes it slow. Like >>making assignments immutable for example. That makes it neccessary to destroy >>and recreate all data at certain points. That is slow. But then you use a tree >>representation of large data and you go from N to log N. Or list access may be >>by traversion. Then you use a good data representation. Slowness usually stems >>from poor comprehension on the programmers part. Using lists as arrays an such. >> >>MvH Dan Anderssond > >Theoretically you can use years 50 technology with very old >computers to fly to Mars too. > >However a possible mars mission will use the latest technology. > >So if you manage to optimize your years 70 functional languages >very well for a compiler for a certain cpu, then we have a new >generation of CPUs already. > >The compilers for the imperative languages will be ready by then. The >functional language compilers will only look like years 70s. Everyone >abandons them therefore. > >There are other practical problems with languages like Gofer. I wrote >a checkers program in it. That's not a simple 10 line program. > >That's a few thousands of lines of code. > >That's hundreds of functions. > >It's complete chaos. > >Imperative programming is completely superb to that. > >Any serious program is not possible to get written in a functional >language. > >It's chaos. It's idiocy to optimize such code to working code. > >Now you try to explain to me that you can write an even bigger compiler than >all other imperative compilers combined yourself, which also is doing >the same job, and you can do it while they move on to newer and newer >cpu's? > >Please be realistic. Those languages will *never* be optimized as well as >the current imperative languages are. > >It's too much code to let it optimize well. > >I challenge you to write an efficient move generator in a functional language >and then tell me what speed it produces semi-legal moves. then we can >compare it with the speeds the C programs get. 0 bytes of inline assembly. > >Let's compare with DIEP, Yace and some others. > >No theoretic nonsense please. > >I wrote thousands of lines of functional language and after that i realized >better than the professor who had to look after all that code, how >impossible functional languages are from practical and realistic viewpoint! > >It's *impossible* to optimize that very well. > >Best regards, >Vincent
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.