Excerpts from Jon Harrop's message of Thu Aug 14 23:16:26 +0200 2008:
> On Thursday 14 August 2008 21:57:59 you wrote:
> > Excerpts from Jon Harrop's message of Thu Aug 14 15:57:47 +0200 2008:
> > > On Thursday 14 August 2008 12:50:43 blue storm wrote:
> > > > and Haskell is faster than most (scripting) languages used these days
> > > > anyway).
> > >
> > > Despite being written in Python, Mercurial is orders of magnitude faster
> > > than Darcs.
> >
> > The difference of performances between Darcs and Mercurial is 99% due
> > differences in algorithms not in the implementation language. So this
> > comparison does not make sense!
> 
> Only if the choice of algorithm was independent of the language, which is 
> rarely the case.
> 
> For example, Fortran programmers use arrays when they are unsuitable and their 
> programs can be slower than scripting languages as a consequence. That is 
> Fortran's fault.
> 
> Does the Darcs implementation overuse singly linked lists because they are 
> more accessible? Are the reported stack overflows indicative of this? I don't 
> know but I certainly wouldn't rule it out as a possibility.

I'm talking about the informal algorithms, their independent of that kind of
things...

-- 
Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai