On 18 Jul 2007, at 8:52 pm, Bjorn Bringert wrote:
Well, the original poster wanted advice on how to improve his
Haskell style, not algorithmic complexity. I think that the
appropriate response to that is to show different ways to write the
same program in idiomatic Haskell.
(a) I gave some of that; I wrote my solution before seeing anyone
else's.
(b) I find it hard to imagine a state of mind in which algorithmic
complexity is seen as irrelevant to style. I am reminded of the
bad old days when Quintus had customers who were infuriated
because writing an exponential-time algorithm in a few lines of
Prolog didn't mean it ran fast on large examples. Their code
was short, so it HAD to be good code, which meant the slowness
had to be our fault. Not so!
(c) The key point in my posting was the reference to Gries' paper,
in which he derives an imperative program in Dijkstra's notation
USING A CALCULATIONAL STYLE, very like the bananas-lenses-and-
barbed wire stuff popular in some parts of the functional
community.
/Björn
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
