Comments for blog.poucet.org http://blog.poucet.org Blogging about technology, functional programming, linux and life in general. Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:11:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 Comment on Haskell Platform on Mac OSX by wren ng thornton http://blog.poucet.org/2011/01/haskell-platform-on-mac-osx/comment-page-1/#comment-2500 wren ng thornton Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:11:02 +0000 http://blog.poucet.org/?p=173#comment-2500 Don't forget the other alternative: Fink. I long ago chose Fink over MacPorts precisely because of all these sorts of problems people have with MP. Since it follows the Debian model, sometimes the available versions are a bit old (especially re Haskell's fast development cycle) but other than that I've had no memorable issues. Don’t forget the other alternative: Fink. I long ago chose Fink over MacPorts precisely because of all these sorts of problems people have with MP. Since it follows the Debian model, sometimes the available versions are a bit old (especially re Haskell’s fast development cycle) but other than that I’ve had no memorable issues.

]]> Comment on Levenshtein Distance in Haskell by Grazer http://blog.poucet.org/2008/04/levenshtein-distance-in-haskell/comment-page-1/#comment-1242 Grazer Fri, 01 Oct 2010 04:14:58 +0000 http://blog.poucet.org/2008/04/levenshtein-distance-in-haskell/#comment-1242 It is also possible to have a much faster algorithm for similar sequences. See Lloyd Allison's haskell implementation of a O(N*d) solution. http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~lloyd/tildeFP/Haskell/1998/Edit01/ It is also possible to have a much faster algorithm for similar sequences. See Lloyd Allison’s haskell implementation of a O(N*d) solution.

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~lloyd/tildeFP/Haskell/1998/Edit01/

]]> Comment on Levenshtein Distance in Haskell by gasche http://blog.poucet.org/2008/04/levenshtein-distance-in-haskell/comment-page-1/#comment-1152 gasche Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:03:39 +0000 http://blog.poucet.org/2008/04/levenshtein-distance-in-haskell/#comment-1152 Sorry, I just realized you were using Data.Array, not list, so you have constant-time random access. Sorry, I just realized you were using Data.Array, not list, so you have constant-time random access.

]]> Comment on Levenshtein Distance in Haskell by gasche http://blog.poucet.org/2008/04/levenshtein-distance-in-haskell/comment-page-1/#comment-1151 gasche Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:02:04 +0000 http://blog.poucet.org/2008/04/levenshtein-distance-in-haskell/#comment-1151 What is the complexity of your implementation, given (li ! n) is in O(n) ? I would expect O(n^3) instead of the usual O(n^2). What is the complexity of your implementation, given (li ! n) is in O(n) ? I would expect O(n^3) instead of the usual O(n^2).

]]> Comment on A fresh start by poucet http://blog.poucet.org/2009/08/a-fresh-start/comment-page-1/#comment-148 poucet Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:39:15 +0000 http://blog.poucet.org/?p=1#comment-148 Well, I should have expected that one, given the openness of the question. But if anyone has a serious answer, I am definitely interested. Well, I should have expected that one, given the openness of the question. But if anyone has a serious answer, I am definitely interested.

]]> Comment on A fresh start by Phil http://blog.poucet.org/2009/08/a-fresh-start/comment-page-1/#comment-147 Phil Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:36:28 +0000 http://blog.poucet.org/?p=1#comment-147 > Finally, if anyone has an interesting suggestion for what to put on the > main webpage (http://www.poucet.org), comments are always welcome Porn, clearly. > Finally, if anyone has an interesting suggestion for what to put on the
> main webpage (http://www.poucet.org), comments are always welcome

Porn, clearly.

]]> Comment on Flattening Data.Map by Edward Kmett http://blog.poucet.org/2009/04/flattening-datamap/comment-page-1/#comment-1802 Edward Kmett Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:57:39 +0000 http://cpoucet.wordpress.com/?p=120#comment-1802 Actually, the issue with TH is simpler than that. It currently doesn't support type and data families. I ran into that issue when I started doing this same thing to Data.Set. I love the idea of abusing the views for flattening. I've been working towards that same goal with a flattened trie implementation. Normally a ternary search tree based trie that winds up with a bunch of Maybe nodes floating around to keep the implementation simple, but I can flatten the cases into the constructors and only extract them during view. I've also been exploring if I can store the trie internally in compact PATRICIA form, but expose only a simple view that is ignorant of this storage optimization. Actually, the issue with TH is simpler than that. It currently doesn’t support type and data families.

I ran into that issue when I started doing this same thing to Data.Set. I love the idea of abusing the views for flattening. I’ve been working towards that same goal with a flattened trie implementation. Normally a ternary search tree based trie that winds up with a bunch of Maybe nodes floating around to keep the implementation simple, but I can flatten the cases into the constructors and only extract them during view. I’ve also been exploring if I can store the trie internally in compact PATRICIA form, but expose only a simple view that is ignorant of this storage optimization.

]]> Comment on Flattening Data.Map by cpoucet http://blog.poucet.org/2009/04/flattening-datamap/comment-page-1/#comment-1801 cpoucet Sun, 19 Apr 2009 21:27:55 +0000 http://cpoucet.wordpress.com/?p=120#comment-1801 We're currently working on some benchmarks that will give us these numbers. There are no benchmarks out there that we know of for associative containers. We’re currently working on some benchmarks that will give us these numbers. There are no benchmarks out there that we know of for associative containers.

]]> Comment on Flattening Data.Map by Dafydd Harries http://blog.poucet.org/2009/04/flattening-datamap/comment-page-1/#comment-1800 Dafydd Harries Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:48:54 +0000 http://cpoucet.wordpress.com/?p=120#comment-1800 It would be nice to see some numbers on what differences these sorts of changes can achieve. It would be nice to see some numbers on what differences these sorts of changes can achieve.

]]> Comment on Flattening Data.Map by Felipe Lessa http://blog.poucet.org/2009/04/flattening-datamap/comment-page-1/#comment-1799 Felipe Lessa Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:37:57 +0000 http://cpoucet.wordpress.com/?p=120#comment-1799 Hmmm... but at the very least -funbox-strict-fields could be applied, maybe with a file pragma (not to force the entire library/program to use it). Hmmm… but at the very least -funbox-strict-fields could be applied, maybe with a file pragma (not to force the entire library/program to use it).

]]>