Re: Markdown for AMP Project https://www.ampproject.org/

[Kolen Cheung <christian.kolen-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3422 bytes --]



Very interesting to know these. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not surprised 
some people need performance. I’m just saying given the requirements and 
options, pandoc really doesn’t fit your need.

Other than pandoc, I think compiling Haskell with stack is much easier. I’m 
no Haskell expert but this is what I heard. I agree cabal dependency hell 
is frustrating.

Yes, “Haskell is used in science”. It just doesn’t really “has a presence”. 
Generally, people talked about using C/C++/UPC (and CUDA), Fortran, even 
Python (PyCUDA), and then the new Julia for HPC (High Performance 
Computing). But I never heard of people talking about *deploying* a 
scientific HPC application written in Haskell. What makes me sad is that 
actually Haskell is faster than Python. But scientist chose Python over 
Haskell because of e.g. the ease to learn it, distribute, and interfacing 
with existing Fortran and C/C++ code base, and all these are difficult to 
be accomplished in Haskell. One problem many scientists have is that they 
are not professional programmers, and they don’t care about spending time 
learning a language (except when needed in their research). So many of them 
write whatever code that’s getting their research done in the least amount 
of time. For computer time dominant projects, they use Fortran/C/C++; for 
programmers’ time dominant projects, they use Python. But they (almost) 
never choose Haskell because it is hard to learn (lots of programmers time 
to pick it up, but develop time might actually be much less. But they don’t 
invest in the future but want to code right now) and slow (lots of computer 
time needed). So it’s in the middle of nowhere.

I also heard part of the reason Haskell didn’t take off in the way say 
Python does is a matter of PR — they just are not good at selling their 
product.

And then perhaps another reason Haskell is not a good fit for science is 
that Haskell focus too much on correctness. But in scientific computing, 
most of the time we actually didn’t really care if it is “correct”, but 
close enough and fast.

I wish I can use Haskell in any part of my research such that it gives me 
excuse to spend more time to learn such a beautiful language (and to 
contribute more to pandoc).

P.S. as I’m typing the above, I found that Intel has finally released the 
long-promised Haskell compiler! In the past, they released studies showing 
that in some situation, the Haskell code beats the C code by 8% in speed. 
Hopefully this could change the adoption of Haskell in scientific 
programming. Reference: IntelLabs/flrc: Haskell Research Compiler 
<https://github.com/IntelLabs/flrc>, Intel Haskell Research Compiler | 
Hacker News <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14106557>
​

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/e69fce56-6677-4918-830e-ffe4fcd60cb0%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 8438 bytes --]