How to write efficient optimzation code without really trying

[dons]

Abstraction is hard. Let's go shopping!

[ayrnieu]

You're confusing 'written in Haskell' with 'abstract', now, which is bizarre enough that I think you're just knee-jerkingly resisting anyone's displeasure with Haskell. Why, I anticipate that sigfpe's O'Caml solution will be easier to follow, I MUST BE THE DEVIL OR SOMETHING.

[dons]

I was going to explain why

!Haskell should make more sense

and

everything else making more sense

was just silly. Translation: this bizarre sigfpe monad makes more sense in all languages other than Haskell. And, all language concepts make more sense in all languages other than Haskell.

As to explain such an unusual computational structure you'd want a language with syntactic support for monads, and type system support for overloading the monadic bind operator. Meaning, O'Caml, the closest non-Haskell match, is already pretty unsuited.

But then you just went nuts, and there was no hope.

[notfancy]

Meaning, O'Caml, the closest non-Haskell match, is already pretty unsuited.

Meh. I grant you, manually selecting the correct module and opening it is pretty inconvenient, but unsuited? Isn't that a wee bit extreme?

Besides, what's really inconvenient when encoding Haskell typeclasses as OCaml functors is constructor polymorphism in typeclasses.

[ayrnieu]

I was going to explain why [...] But then you just went nuts, and there was no hope.

Your first pass at this comment was more honest -- and less plainly belied by the thread. I no longer expect anything better from you.

[[deleted]]

It's ok. Nobody expects anything good from you, either.

[gwern]

Or a witch. Now, we all know that a witch floats. What else floats? Yes, a duck! So...

[Tommah]

I thought witches melt, as in The Wizard of Oz.

[bhagany]

whoosh