From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA00575; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:20:26 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
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 UAA00566 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:20:25 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from web10706.mail.yahoo.com (web10706.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.130.214])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id g69IKOH17641
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:20:24 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-ID: <20020709182022.69599.qmail@web10706.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [216.69.69.135] by web10706.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:20:22 PDT
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 11:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Shannon --jj Behrens <jjinux@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] productivity improvement
To: Basile STARYNKEVITCH <basile.starynkevitch@cea.fr>,
        Oleg <oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
In-Reply-To: <15658.56034.306342.892408@is002254.saclay.cea.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

>     Oleg> What are the _simplest_ examples that
> demonstrate
>     Oleg> considerable (> 2:1) O'Caml vs C++
> productivity improvement
>     Oleg> (in terms of program size) and where can I
> find them?

I wrote a bunch of programs comparing several
languages using two different algorithms ("Simple" and
"Modcount") for finding primes.  Eventually, I hope to
throw these up on a Web page, but here is a summary of
the results:

Simple:
  C:
    Source: 76 lines
    Binary: 5833 bytes
    Sample Run: 1.56 seconds
  Cyclone:
    Source: 63 lines
    Binary: 127264 bytes
    Sample Run: 1.63 seconds
  Ocaml:
    Source: 35 lines
    Binary: 138726 bytes
    Sample Run: 3.57 seconds
  Python:
    Source: 28 lines
    Binary: 1629 bytes
    Sample Run: 13.6 seconds

ModCount:
  C:
    Source: 95 lines
    Binary: 6020 bytes
    Sample Run: 1.08 seconds
  Cyclone:
    Source: 83 lines
    Binary: 127391 bytes
    Sample Run: 1.35 seconds
  Ocaml:
    Source: 54 lines
    Binary: 139091 bytes
    Sample Run: 3.66 seconds
  Python:
    Source: 44 lines
    Binary: 4054 bytes
    Sample Run: 91.8 seconds

Line counts do not include blank lines or comments.
Sample runs were calculated using "time ./executable
5000".  Ocaml programs where compiled using the native
compiler.  Python binary sizes were taken from .pyo's
which still require the Python interpretter.  My
friend did a Java version.  It required more lines of
code that OCAML, and was slightly slower.  I don't
have the exact numbers, so I haven't written them
here. :(

Here are some of the things that I learned:

1) C is the fastest (of course).
2) Python requires the fewest lines of code.
3) Ocaml provides (in my mind) the best ratio of
execution speed per lines of code.
4) I don't agree that having a higher level language
will often result in using better algorithms, which
compensate for the language overhead.

I have the code of the programs, if you wish.

Best Regards,
-jj

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com
-------------------
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