Stealing from Biologists to Compile Haskell Faster
The article discusses the challenges of optimizing the ApplicativeDo feature in the GHC Haskell compiler. It highlights the complexity of grouping independent statements for better performance and the algorithmic difficulties involved. The author draws parallels between the optimization problem and techniques used in biology for RNA folding predictions.
- ▪GHC has an optimization flag for ApplicativeDo that is disabled by default due to performance issues.
- ▪The optimal layout algorithm for ApplicativeDo is complex and has a high computational cost.
- ▪The goal is to optimize the scheduling of independent statements without incurring the O(n³) cost of the optimal algorithm.
2 outlets in our directory ran this story, first to last over 3 hours. All of the coverage we found sits in one bucket: centre. That one-sidedness is itself worth noticing.
Hacker News (Newest) files mainly under programming. We currently carry 5,306 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Ian Duncan |
| Canonical URL | https://www.iankduncan.com/engineering/2026-05-30-stealing-from-biologists-to-compile-haskell-faster/ |
| Publication time | Sat, 30 May 2026 17:50:21 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-30T17:59:43.108Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-30T17:59:43.108Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | y3uc5rReJFmg · 2 stories |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Stealing from Biologists to Compile Haskell Faster [ 2026-05-30 ] This started when someone mentioned, mostly in passing, that GHC has a flag for ApplicativeDo (-foptimal-applicative-do) that’s switched off by default because the algorithm behind it is too slow to use. That sounded like a bug to me. An optimization that’s correct but disabled for being slow is the kind of thing you fix in an afternoon, I figured. It wasn’t; it turned out to be a properly hard problem, and the problem has been eating at me for months. ApplicativeDo is a quiet corner of GHC to start with. Most programs never switch it on, and most of the ones that do are fine with the default and never reach for the optimal flag, so we’re well into the weeds even by compiler-internals standards.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Ian Duncan.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Ian Duncan
