Comment on Beating Decades of Optimized C with 80 Lines of HaskellparentComments−olliej6yI just wrote a very dumb implementation of wc and it’s easily twice as fast.I think the core issue is that wc is not a super optimized program. It is sufficiently fast for most purposes and so hasn’t ever been improved.−xrisk6yCan you test it with GNU wc? I'm curious https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/blob/master/src/wc.c−olliej6yHere is my super dumb implementation. Doesn't handle multibyte, doesn't handle stdin -- but I don't think the Haskell version did either, so I don't have a problem with that limit.https://github.com/ojhunt/wcIt's the simplest thing that could obviously work, but its generally not tested beyond the most basic versions.−olliej6yI’m comparing to Mac wc, which is apparently what they were testing against, and I was getting twice that perf without anything clever.That said I’ll try to post my horrifying impl to GitHub later :)
Comments
I just wrote a very dumb implementation of wc and it’s easily twice as fast.
I think the core issue is that wc is not a super optimized program. It is sufficiently fast for most purposes and so hasn’t ever been improved.
Can you test it with GNU wc? I'm curious https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/blob/master/src/wc.c
Here is my super dumb implementation. Doesn't handle multibyte, doesn't handle stdin -- but I don't think the Haskell version did either, so I don't have a problem with that limit.
https://github.com/ojhunt/wc
It's the simplest thing that could obviously work, but its generally not tested beyond the most basic versions.
I’m comparing to Mac wc, which is apparently what they were testing against, and I was getting twice that perf without anything clever.
That said I’ll try to post my horrifying impl to GitHub later :)