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 discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0EDBC69 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2007 01:33:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.135]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l51NXufT008092 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2007 01:33:57 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.16,374,1175437800"; d="scan'208";a="97812287" 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 09:03:55 +0930 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Comparison of OCaml and MLton for numerics From: skaller To: Jon Harrop Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <200706011752.04504.jon@ffconsultancy.com> References: <5195a210705302250u6a9e5adey4ed857480f9e5cd8@mail.gmail.com> <3d13dcfc0706010449k53f1c364gfd4db47c7c258725@mail.gmail.com> <1180708903.4140.23.camel@rosella.wigram> <200706011752.04504.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 09:33:53 +1000 Message-Id: <1180740833.5142.29.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 4660ACE4.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 0100,:01 optimising:01 compiler:01 compiler:01 ocaml:01 prototyping:01 compilation:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 preprocessor:01 caml-list:01 optimizing:02 comparison:04 On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 17:52 +0100, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Friday 01 June 2007 15:41:43 skaller wrote: > > Paying 4 times more dollars for a CPU that is twice as fast is a > > very expensive solution compared to an optimising compiler .. > > Much more cost effective to implement more effective compiler features in > house. All you need is the author of an excellent whole-program optimizing > compiler for some related language. Or you could make an SML->Ocaml preprocessor .. allowing rapid prototyping with Ocaml and production compilation with another tool. -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net