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=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD0FBC69 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:01:30 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAHQT+UbLENaMnmdsb2JhbACOLAEBAQEHBAYPGA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,297,1186351200"; d="scan'208";a="3246894" Received: from ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net ([203.16.214.140]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2007 23:01:29 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAJIR+UZ5LHvc/2dsb2JhbAAM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,297,1186324200"; d="scan'208";a="197532064" Received: from ppp121-44-123-220.lns10.syd6.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([121.44.123.220]) by ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 26 Sep 2007 06:31:15 +0930 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Ocaml for Scientific computing From: skaller To: Jon Harrop Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <200709252138.49050.jon@ffconsultancy.com> References: <2a1a1a0c0709251027v6dc42b38g1138b09f5627dbca@mail.gmail.com> <1190745994.12747.41.camel@rosella.wigram> <200709252138.49050.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:01:14 +1000 Message-Id: <1190754074.6800.8.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 0100,:01 conceptually:01 ocaml:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 unsafe:01 bounds:02 bounds:02 guess:04 computing:05 tue:06 john:08 i'm:09 On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 21:38 +0100, Jon Harrop wrote: > I'm not sure that it is conceptually more difficult to do similar things for > OCaml but my vote goes to hoisting bounds checks. I don't like having to > write unsafe code by hand in OCaml and F# does a great job of improving > performance by hoisting bounds checks. I guess that this is easier. How much speed is gained eliding bounds checks? -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net