From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: weis Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA06375 for caml-redistribution; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 14:57:28 +0100 (MET) 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 GAA21517 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 06:57:38 +0100 (MET) Received: from www.nextsolution.co.jp (news.nextsolution.co.jp [202.33.245.114]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA20114 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 06:57:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from sparc3.co.jp (sparc3 [202.235.80.3]) by www.nextsolution.co.jp (SMI-8.6/) with ESMTP id OAA15935 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 14:56:23 +0900 Received: by sparc3.co.jp (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA00388; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 14:58:41 +0900 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 14:58:41 +0900 Message-Id: <199701290558.OAA00388@sparc3.co.jp> From: Frank Christoph To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: (O)caml and Java Sender: weis I certainly don't want to make a big issue out of it, but the question is begging to be asked. :) Has anyone ever compared the time performance of interpreted (O)caml and Java, or (O)caml/Tk and Java+AWT? I expect no one has translated a test suite into both languages, but it would be amusing even to hear informal accounts... -- Frank Christoph Next Solution Co. Tel: 0424-98-1811 christo@nextsolution.co.jp Fax: 0424-98-1500