[darcs-users] performance (was GHC and Darcs)

[zooko]

On Jul 30, 2008, at 7:38 AM, Eric Kow wrote:

> [b] on a practical front, darcs2 is slower than darcs1 on some stuff.
> It deals *much* better with conflicts (much reduced risk of
> exponential blowup), but day-to-day things are slow enough to be
> annoying

Could you point us to some of the tickets which are/were most  
frustrating to the GHC developers?

I'm a darcs-2 user, and the performance is acceptable for me, and  
dramatically better than darcs-1 for one of my common use cases (a  
darcs get of a whole large repository when more or less all the  
patches are already in darcs-2's local cache).

I'm not sure if the darcs-2 performance is acceptable to my  
programming partners.  If they complain, I will try to open a ticket  
showing exactly what is dissatisfying to them.

I have the idea that darcs-2 has not yet benefitted from newly  
developed Haskell tools such as profilers.

In response to Patrick Waugh's comments, I would *like* to think that  
Haskell programs can be optimized at least as well as C++ programs  
can be, but I guess this remains to be empirically determined.

Regards,

Zooko