Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 1010505
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 16, 20262026-05-16T09:05:34+00:00 2026-05-16T09:05:34+00:00

I’m just learning Haskell, so sorry if my question is stupid. I’m reading learnyouahaskell.com

  • 0

I’m just learning Haskell, so sorry if my question is stupid. I’m reading learnyouahaskell.com and now I’m at chapter 5 “Recursion”. There’s an example of implementation of standard ‘reverse’ function:

reverse' :: [a] -> [a]  
reverse' [] = []  
reverse' (x:xs) = reverse' xs ++ [x]  

But it seems that it runs in O(N^2) time, while the standard reverse runs in O(N) (I hope so). The following code illustrates this:

sum (reverse [1,2..1000000]) -- runs pretty fast
sum (reverse' [1,2..1000000]) -- never finishes

So, I started thinking how to implement my own reverse faster. It’s pretty easy to do in imperative languages. Maybe I need some more advanced material from subsequent chapters to do this? Any hints are welcomed.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-16T09:05:34+00:00Added an answer on May 16, 2026 at 9:05 am

    It can be implemented efficiently using an extra accumulator parameter, like the second parameter of fac in this example:

    factorial n = fac n 1
      where
        fac 0 r = r
        fac n r = fac (n-1) (r*n)
    

    If you just want to know how it’s done in the standard library, you can also look at the source code.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

No related questions found

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.