Hello Bas,
sorry for being unclear. What you say is correct, I was referring (and I
realised this after posting :D ) that the real
annoying thing is fragmentation in memory. Due to the fact the GC can't
move those objects, if we have long running
processes our memory will become more and more frag
On 10 July 2013 08:57, Alfredo Di Napoli wrote:
>
>> To make the transition easier I have an experimental library which
>> defines a ByteString as a type synonym of a Storable.Vector of Word8
>> and provides the same interface as the bytestring package:
>>
>> https://github.com/basvandijk/vector-b
> To make the transition easier I have an experimental library which
> defines a ByteString as a type synonym of a Storable.Vector of Word8
> and provides the same interface as the bytestring package:
>
> https://github.com/basvandijk/vector-bytestring
That's interesting Bas. What bothers me abou
On 5 June 2013 11:50, Peter Simons wrote:
> I meant to say that there is redundancy in *both*. The libraries
> mentioned in this thread re-implement the same type internally and
> expose APIs to the user that are largely identical.
I agree. I hope that ByteStrings will be replaced by a Storable.V
Hi Tom,
thank you for the explanation.
> I believe you are suggesting that there is redundancy in the
> implementation details of these libraries, not in the APIs they
> expose.
I meant to say that there is redundancy in *both*. The libraries
mentioned in this thread re-implement the same typ
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 11:23:16PM +0200, Peter Simons wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:01:37PM +0200, Peter Simons wrote:
> >> > If you're representing text, use 'text'.
> >> > If you're representing a string of bytes, use 'bytestring'.
> >> > If you want an "array" of values, think c+
Hi Tom,
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:01:37PM +0200, Peter Simons wrote:
>> > How is this a problem?
>> >
>> > If you're representing text, use 'text'.
>> > If you're representing a string of bytes, use 'bytestring'.
>> > If you want an "array" of values, think c++ and use 'vector'.
>>
These libraries are tuned for wildly different workloads and use cases,
so these sorts of micro benchmarks are an Apples to Frogs comparisons.
You can argue that for any benchmark, but sometimes the choice is
between Apples and Frogs. If you have some more extensive benchmarks I'm
happy to hav
On 05/06/13 07:01, silvio wrote:
array does provide folding functions, found in its Foldable and
Traversable instances.
Where can I find this? I can neither in the array package nor with
google nor with hoogle.
Silvio
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
array does provide folding functions, found in its Foldable and
Traversable instances.
Where can I find this? I can neither in the array package nor with
google nor with hoogle.
Silvio
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://w
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 librari
I really don't understand this concern.
These libraries are tuned for wildly different workloads and use cases, so
these sorts of micro benchmarks are an Apples to Frogs comparisons.
(even aside from the fact that you'll get very different perf if you used
-fllvm and set things up so the array ind
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 conver
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:01:37PM +0200, Peter Simons wrote:
> > How is this a problem?
> >
> > If you're representing text, use 'text'.
> > If you're representing a string of bytes, use 'bytestring'.
> > If you want an "array" of values, think c++ and use 'vector'.
>
> the problem is that a
Hi Clark,
> How is this a problem?
>
> If you're representing text, use 'text'.
> If you're representing a string of bytes, use 'bytestring'.
> If you want an "array" of values, think c++ and use 'vector'.
the problem is that all those packages implement the exact same data
type from scratch
Oops.
Ben Gamari писал(а) в своём письме Tue, 04 Jun
2013 04:41:53 +0300:
To be perfectly clear, ByteString and Text target much different
use-cases and are hardly interchangeable. While ByteString is, as the
name suggests, a string of bytes, Text is a string of characters in a
Unicode encodin
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 23:19:38 -0400
Clark Gaebel wrote:
> That's absolutely true. Wrappers around vector for your multidimensional
> access is probably best, but Vectors of Vectors are usually easier.
>
> But again, you're right. Multidimensional access is a pain. If it's a
> "matrix" of numerical
That's absolutely true. Wrappers around vector for your multidimensional
access is probably best, but Vectors of Vectors are usually easier.
But again, you're right. Multidimensional access is a pain. If it's a
"matrix" of numerical values, you could take a look at 'hmatrix'.
- Clark
On Monday
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Clark Gaebel wrote:
> How is this a problem?
>
> If you're representing text, use 'text'.
> If you're representing a string of bytes, use 'bytestring'.
> If you want an "array" of values, think c++ and use 'vector'.
> If you want to mutate arrays, first, make sure y
How is this a problem?
If you're representing text, use 'text'.
If you're representing a string of bytes, use 'bytestring'.
If you want an "array" of values, think c++ and use 'vector'.
If you want to mutate arrays, first, make sure you do. You probably don't.
If you're sure, use MVector.
Don't u
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:16:08 +
silvio wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Every time I want to use an array in Haskell, I find myself having to
> look up in the doc how they are used, which exactly are the modules I
> have to import ... and I am a bit tired of staring at type signatures
> for 10 mi
Artyom Kazak writes:
> silvio писал(а) в своём письме Mon, 03 Jun 2013
> 22:16:08 +0300:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Every time I want to use an array in Haskell, I find myself having to
>> look up in the doc how they are used, which exactly are the modules I
>> have to import ... and I am a b
silvio писал(а) в своём письме Mon, 03 Jun 2013
22:16:08 +0300:
Hi everyone,
Every time I want to use an array in Haskell, I find myself having to
look up in the doc how they are used, which exactly are the modules I
have to import ... and I am a bit tired of staring at type signatures
write :: MVector a -> Int -> a -> ST s a
This should have been:
write :: MVector s a -> Int -> a -> ST s a
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Hi everyone,
Every time I want to use an array in Haskell, I find myself having to
look up in the doc how they are used, which exactly are the modules I
have to import ... and I am a bit tired of staring at type signatures
for 10 minutes to figure out how these arrays work every time I use the
25 matches
Mail list logo
