caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: William Chesters <williamc@paneris.org>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 19:00:16 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <15711.57520.125841.25102@beertje.william.bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200208181716.NAA10426@hickory.cc.columbia.edu>

Oleg writes:
 > I'm curious as to where these huge differences for these small programs come 
 > from.

>From a very quick look at your array example, the point is very simply
that in your "abstract" fold_left idiom

    Array.fold_left (fun x a -> x +. float a) sum ar

the compiler doesn't inline Array.fold_left, and hence not your
anonymous "fun" either, because it doesn't inline anything between
compilation units.  You would see this clearly in the assembler output
if you used ocamlopt -S.

This is an example of the general truth that you can get very good
performance out of ocaml, but only as long as you ensure that your
inner loops are coded in a very down-to-earth style.

Whether this is a problem depends on your point of view.  If you think
the aim of good programming is to find beautiful abstract formulations
(including the inner loops) which nevertheless compile to optimal
machine code, it's bad.  If you think that languages and programming
idioms should stay more or less isomorphic to the execution model of
the CPU then you won't feel a need for it.
-------------------
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


  reply	other threads:[~2002-08-18 17:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-08-18 17:17 Oleg
2002-08-18 18:00 ` William Chesters [this message]
2002-08-18 19:06   ` Oleg
2002-08-18 21:37     ` William Chesters
2002-08-19 13:02   ` Xavier Leroy
2002-08-19 13:58     ` [Caml-list] Inlining across functors (was: O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark) Thorsten Ohl
2002-08-19 21:16       ` malc
2002-08-19 22:06         ` [Caml-list] Specialization (was: Inlining across functors) Thorsten Ohl
2002-08-20  6:35           ` [Caml-list] " malc
2002-08-20  6:25         ` [Caml-list] Inlining across functors (was: O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark) malc
2002-08-19 14:39     ` [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark Oleg
2002-08-19 15:15     ` William Chesters
2002-08-18 19:16 ` Markus Mottl
2002-08-18 19:58   ` Oleg
2002-08-18 22:59     ` Markus Mottl
2002-08-19 13:12 ` malc
2002-08-19 13:22 ` malc
2002-08-23 21:05 ` John Max Skaller
2002-08-23 21:35   ` Oleg
2002-08-28 13:47     ` John Max Skaller
2002-08-28 14:34       ` Alain Frisch
2002-08-28 17:23       ` inlining tail-recursive functions (Re: [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark) Oleg
2002-08-31  1:13         ` John Max Skaller

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=15711.57520.125841.25102@beertje.william.bogus \
    --to=williamc@paneris.org \
    --cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).