On 05/06/13 02:49, silvio wrote:
Just to clarify for those on the sidelines, the issue is duplication of
implementation details, rather than duplication of functionality?
Well to me, that is not the main issue. The main issue is that you
have to study all of them and depending on which libraries you want to
use have to convert between them, which could be expensive and is
definitely annoying.
I made a few simple benchmarks comparing the three libraries you can
find the code attached.
this is compiled with -O2
# simple sum of 1000000 Word8 elements
Unboxed Vector 1.114060 ms
Storable Vector 795.1207 us
Primitive Vector 1.116145 ms
ByteString 9.076256 ms
array library has no fold or sum function
# simple sum of 1000000 more or less randomly chosen elements
Unboxed Vector (unsafe) 33.74364 ms
Storable Vector (unsafe) 50.27273 ms
Storable Vector (safe) 67.01634 ms
Primitive Vector (unsafe) 56.29919 ms
ByteString (unsafe) 19.29611 ms
ByteString (safe) 18.29065 ms
UArray (safe) 46.88719 ms
unsafe does not exist for array
So Unboxed can be better than Storable but doesn't need to be.
Also, which implementation is faster depends very much on the problem
at hand. And array is just missing half the needed features.
Silvio
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
array does provide folding functions, found in its Foldable and
Traversable instances.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
