From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79B2BC69 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:41:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.135]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l51EfnfB001608 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:41:50 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.16,373,1175437800"; d="scan'208";a="97706343" Received: from ppp9-14.lns1.syd7.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([59.167.9.14]) by ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2007 00:11:48 +0930 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Comparison of OCaml and MLton for numerics From: skaller To: David MENTRE Cc: Yaron Minsky , Alain Frisch , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <3d13dcfc0706010449k53f1c364gfd4db47c7c258725@mail.gmail.com> References: <5195a210705302250u6a9e5adey4ed857480f9e5cd8@mail.gmail.com> <200705311008.16662.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <5195a210705310222p6aa8482fr70e7bf2b2b631b72@mail.gmail.com> <200705311127.28639.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <465F3E8C.10404@inria.fr> <1180660974.15528.126.camel@rosella.wigram> <465FAF0B.5060700@inria.fr> <891bd3390706010429g2ac722bfmc6932b15393a62b9@mail.gmail.com> <3d13dcfc0706010449k53f1c364gfd4db47c7c258725@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:41:43 +1000 Message-Id: <1180708903.4140.23.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4660302D.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 0200,:01 yaron:01 minsky:01 yminsky:01 functors:01 ocaml:01 optimising:01 compiler:01 overnight:98 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 cornell:01 modules:02 On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 13:49 +0200, David MENTRE wrote: > Hello, > > 2007/6/1, Yaron Minsky : > > In other words, > > factoring out with functors and modules is good style, but OCaml penalizes > > you for it. > > A naive and somewhat provocative question: is the performance penalty > a real issue in your production code or just a known overhead that is > easily solved by having a more powerful computer? Many calculations such as financial option pricing have performance exponential in lookahead time. These calculations are run regularly with varying parameters. Being able to run the calculations with twice the number of parameter values in an overnight run is valuable, and gives the finance house an edge over their competitors. Paying 4 times more dollars for a CPU that is twice as fast is a very expensive solution compared to an optimising compiler .. and if you paid this money you'd be even MORE inclined to want to use optimised software to get best use out of your investment. So, in my opinion .. yes, performance matters, and faster CPUs don't really help. However the choice of a good language like Ocaml is also made on the basis of programmer performance, not just run time performance (otherwise Jane St would be writing everything in assembler .. :) -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net