> it was a large amount of extra work to get that performance boost.
Not really, actually. It took a lot of time to document the transformations, but actually doing the coding was short, much less than an hour total.
> The global re-arrangements of the way data flows through the code are more difficult than many micro-optimisations, not less, so I don't understand how you can claim.
Maybe more difficult for you, but not for me. Micro-optimizations are actually harder for me, there are infinite possibilities there, flow has really only one (or very few) 'proper' mapping(s) from problem space to solution space.
> And you don't have to be an expert in C to make the claim he is making, because most people are not experts in C, but might turn to it because "it's faster".
Every tool has its uses. If you pick C then probably you're doing so because you are convinced that you need it. You should then study how accomplished users of that tool use it, not stop at the first naive use that you come up with yourself.
> It's precisely this kind of person who needs to understand that with their level of knowledge, and the amount of effort that they might put into optimisations, Haskell can be just as good or better.
That's very well possible, again, I do not know Haskell so I can't comment on it. But I don't see any meaningful comparison between the two languages here, speed certainly isn't it and you failed to acknowledge that the article in fact did make that claim.
Not really, actually. It took a lot of time to document the transformations, but actually doing the coding was short, much less than an hour total.
> The global re-arrangements of the way data flows through the code are more difficult than many micro-optimisations, not less, so I don't understand how you can claim.
Maybe more difficult for you, but not for me. Micro-optimizations are actually harder for me, there are infinite possibilities there, flow has really only one (or very few) 'proper' mapping(s) from problem space to solution space.
> And you don't have to be an expert in C to make the claim he is making, because most people are not experts in C, but might turn to it because "it's faster".
Every tool has its uses. If you pick C then probably you're doing so because you are convinced that you need it. You should then study how accomplished users of that tool use it, not stop at the first naive use that you come up with yourself.
> It's precisely this kind of person who needs to understand that with their level of knowledge, and the amount of effort that they might put into optimisations, Haskell can be just as good or better.
That's very well possible, again, I do not know Haskell so I can't comment on it. But I don't see any meaningful comparison between the two languages here, speed certainly isn't it and you failed to acknowledge that the article in fact did make that claim.