Benchmarking implementations of lazy functional languages II - Two years later (1993)
Cached
Download Links
- [ftp.fwi.uva.nl]
- [src.doc.ic.ac.uk]
- [ftp.wins.uva.nl]
- DBLP
Other Repositories/Bibliography
| Venue: | In 6th Functional programming languages and computer architecture |
| Citations: | 33 - 5 self |
BibTeX
@INPROCEEDINGS{Hartel93benchmarkingimplementations,
author = {Pieter H. Hartel},
title = {Benchmarking implementations of lazy functional languages II - Two years later},
booktitle = {In 6th Functional programming languages and computer architecture},
year = {1993},
pages = {341--349},
publisher = {ACM}
}
Years of Citing Articles
Bookmark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
OpenURL
Abstract
Six implementations of different lazy functional languages are compared using a common benchmark of a dozen medium-sized programs. The experiments that were carried out two years ago have been repeated to chart progress in the development of these compilers. The results have been extended to include all three major Haskell compilers. Over the last two years, the Glasgow Haskell compiler has been improved considerably. The other compilers have also been improved, but to a lesser extent. The Yale Haskell compiler is slower than the Glasgow and Chalmers Haskell compilers. The compilation speed of the Clean compiler is still unrivalled. Another extension is a comparison of results on different architectures so as to look at architectural influences on the benchmarking procedure. A high-end architecture should be avoided for benchmarking activities, as its behaviour is uneven. It is better to use a midrange machine if possible. 1 Introduction In the previous benchmark paper [10], which wi...
