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 QAA01989 for caml-redistribution; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:19:44 +0200 (MET DST) 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 BAA18756 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:23:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from igw3.watson.ibm.com (igw3.watson.ibm.com [198.81.209.18]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA19517 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:23:20 +0200 (MET DST) From: chet@watson.ibm.com Received: from mailhub.watson.ibm.com (mailhub.watson.ibm.com [9.2.250.97]) by igw3.watson.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/05-14-1999) with ESMTP id TAA14398; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:23:17 -0400 Received: from nautilus.chet.org (lig32-225-254-198.us.lig-dial.ibm.com [32.225.254.198]) by mailhub.watson.ibm.com (8.8.7/Feb-20-98) with ESMTP id TAA15022; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:23:14 -0400 Received: from bismarck.chet.org (root@bismarck.chet.org [192.168.10.15]) by nautilus.chet.org (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id TAA05975; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:24:07 -0400 Received: from bismarck.chet.org (chet@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bismarck.chet.org (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id TAA00554; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:22:44 -0400 Message-Id: <199910052322.TAA00554@bismarck.chet.org> To: skaller cc: Jan Brosius , OCAML Subject: Re: speed versus C In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 05 Oct 1999 07:59:37 +1000. <37F92349.4C043735@maxtal.com.au> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 19:22:44 -0400 Sender: weis The Caml XML parser I wrote was competitive with XML4C (slightly faster), and blew XML4J out of the water (10x). This was using the native-code compiler. The Caml XSL processor I wrote handily beat Java XSL processors. My guess is that if you're thinking of writing in C, and you don't need low-level access to real memory and such, you will find that CAML is more than fast enough. --chet--