From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB822BBAF for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:54:30 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArMBAKvi60xKfVIqkGdsb2JhbACDTpI8jFgIFQEBAQEJCQwHEQMfpBuJKIJUAQWOCwEEgSKDNnM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,244,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="80078496" Received: from mail-ww0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2010 00:54:30 +0100 Received: by wwb31 with SMTP id 31so516807wwb.3 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:54:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:references :in-reply-to:subject:date:organization:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index :content-language; bh=5RYT8YtUByA/66LWwfytziDHuc7sVsLJuuCX5PEBBc0=; b=CskDlOPE1CCXpk1VwMd1ZE4VnWADO88FNdTs8Pc548iI2Nmpqg6mfek5a9bInpGxXK dFGnVRPCNswmeloqsZDiLYJsBFrmE1w7XdjWgDAtTy1742QJOi/N/uIsrltGjq5tNvC6 CvSKnNEDX5ub6nQgB9jA1AVR+GJ4urrR4akQE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:organization:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; b=WIMs0RVwSvNQLjMOi/Qt2Z1EwQ+aNV+Kg63DKiXgJEv0awFYwLcHGhtpGLix1wDWZn Qmk9GGzb9CK7G5Dp4jtAehWfEsSpUmiMUoqjsHdE57xhgx7V55oXNZDyxWk4yu15s37U 8LA3DAbvVJ+dW4C7LkbDliBR+NHkoldun/9nQ= Received: by 10.216.53.20 with SMTP id f20mr7107615wec.78.1290556469475; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:54:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from WinEight ([87.113.160.118]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f31sm3171368wej.15.2010.11.23.15.54.27 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:54:28 -0800 (PST) From: Jon Harrop To: , References: <538372.76249.qm@web111505.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101123225615.GA28697@siouxsie> In-Reply-To: <20101123225615.GA28697@siouxsie> Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Is OCaml fast? Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:54:08 -0000 Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Message-ID: <068901cb8b69$b9021720$2b064560$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcuLYcE4ZsjNOJdbSnKpSIbDlekQCwABybcw Content-Language: en-gb X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 afaik:01 ocaml:01 statically:01 cheers:01 wrote:01 oliver:01 typing:01 caml-list:01 theorem:02 lisp:02 functional:02 functional:02 languages:03 cambridge:03 Oliver wrote: > AFAIK in the past, functional langauges were not adapted, because they > were > very unperformant - at least this is one reason. > Another reason might be, that the available functional languages in = the > past > were overloaded with parenthess ;) That was also true of early ML implementations. When I was first taught = ML at university we used the Cambridge ML interpreter and you actually = had to sit there and wait for it to solve the 8-queens problem. At the = time, I thought ML was a complete joke and could see no use for it = outside its very specific domain of theorem proving and actually really = resented being taught it on a general CS course. I know better now = though. ;-) Later language implementations inherited many of these inefficiencies = though. Many of the things that can make OCaml and Java slow were = inherited from Lisp. They are, in effect, designs that still bear the = burden of dynamic typing despite being statically typed. Cheers, Jon.