From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id FAA10953; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 05:15:31 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA11483 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 05:15:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i593FQEV002191 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 05:15:28 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp114-11.lns1.syd3.internode.on.net [150.101.114.11]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i593FMHY098083; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:45:22 +0930 (CST) Subject: RE: [Caml-list] 32 bit floats, SSE instructions From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: "Brandon J. Van Every" Cc: caml-list In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1086750921.16811.936.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 09 Jun 2004 13:15:21 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 40C680CE.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 floats:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 brandon:99 overriding:01 floats:01 slower:01 9660:01 glebe:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 closure:01 nsw:01 snail:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 05:59, Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > OCaml has a somewhat practical focus, but maybe it's not sufficiently > practical for me. I do find myself re-evaluating languages in terms of > 3 overriding problems: > > - the available C++ migration path and its efficiency > - the support of basic 3D graphics types, i.e. 32 bit floats > - ability to work with imperative, object oriented designs and libraries > > OCaml currently has 1 out of 3. Felix does all three .. by design. high level operations (eg closure formation, pattern matching) are currently slower than Ocaml. Low level ones are faster (because they just generate raw C). -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners