I'm working on modernizing Rosetta Code's infrastructure. Starting with communications. Please accept this time-limited open invite to RC's Slack.. --Michael Mol (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Tokenize a string with escaping

From Rosetta Code

The alternative Haskell solution needs attention[edit]

Unfortunately, the alternative Haskell solution, given by @Hout doesn't show the strength of Haskell. The alternative solution is very inefficient in case of big lists, due to a pattern list ++ [element]. It ruins the effect of foldl or foldl'.

It is possible to make this solution better by using difference lists with O(1) snoc operator, but then it would require toList . map toList instead of reverse . map reverse as postprocessing. Another workaround would be to replace ++ by : and perform reversion, but in this case the alternative solution will become just a paraphrase of a DFT solution with less modular logic.

After all, it is a sort of parsing problem, so the most natural solution would use some parsing technique (DFT, for example). I would be happy to see an alternative solution using any of parsing libraries, or conduits/pipes so that it could handle real-world text-based cases and demonstrate everyday practice.

I recommend to remove the solution.

If you are not replacing the solution, please do not remove it. It's ok to document issues, but if it's really that much of a problem to come up with a better solution, an existing solution which meets the task requirements should almost always be considered adequate. --Rdm (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I have itemized solutions and added conduit-based solution. However, I don't see the reason to leave the inefficient and non-idiomatic variant. --Samsergey (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, your point about efficiency at scale is interesting and well taken. This task doesn't specify performance at scale, and I think it can be useful to also show the 'simplest' (or most naive :-) single fold solution, but I appreciate your having documented the issue. Very happy to remove for the moment and experiment. Hout (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Have now experimented, and agree with Samsergey :-) Let's remove it – once you make it more efficient at scale, it converges on the first solution, and needs the double reverse. Useful exercise for me – many thanks for your response ! Hout (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I notice that it appears, (tested with a 180k string), to be fractionally/trivially faster than the original DFA draft, so perhaps worth keeping, at least for the moment, for comparison/discussion Hout (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Let a hundred flowers blossom :) We like Haskell for expressiveness, flexibility and freedom to be either experimentators or nudniks which it offers.
Thank you for your helpful thoughts, invariably excellent code, and even forbearance with nudniks :-) Hout (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
(Of course, thinking back to an earlier life only 1hr behind Kamchatka, I do remember that Mao's patience with the blooming of 100 flowers was not to prove inexhaustible... :-) Hout (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)