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 VAA08641; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 21:03:16 +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 VAA10264 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 21:03:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dynabooK (dhcp-55-132.cse.ucsc.edu [128.114.55.132]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9AJ3DD05784 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 21:03:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dynabook ([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost ident=sumii) by dynabooK with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17ziaS-0000OL-00; Fri, 11 Oct 2002 04:03:08 +0900 To: caml-list@inria.fr From: eijiro_sumii@anet.ne.jp cc: sumii@yl.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ICFP 2002 Programming Contest Write-up? In-Reply-To: <20021011030441T.sumii@yl.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> References: <3da521d4.207730921@smtp.interaccess.com> <200210100725.DAA17114@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> <20021011030441T.sumii@yl.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20021011040308F.sumii@yl.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 04:03:08 +0900 X-Dispatcher: imput version 991025(IM133) Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk From: eijiro_sumii@anet.ne.jp > > Is the winning team planning to tell people anything interesting regarding > > the contest? > > We are now preparing our web page. Give us a little more time. (Our > boss got even angry that we spent time on the contest while we should > have been busy with our own business...!) OK, I took a glance at the scores in http://icfpcontest.cse.ogi.edu/scoring/. We are yet to analyze them in detail, but here are two obvious facts: - The scores of team #107 (us) and team #161 (the 2nd) are *very* close and rather incomparable in various scenarios. The game was almost a draw, I would say. - On the other hand, the CPU times are quite different: we are more than 70 times faster! This is surprising enough---even though speed was not a goal in the task and even though the CPU times may be somewhat imprecise as the judges say---considering the other entry is written in (raw) C. By the way, we have to confess that we did not do so much *functional* programming - our code is almost imperative. This may be natural, arguably, because the task was rather imperative involving a quite "stateful" server. -- Eijiro Sumii (http://www.yl.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~sumii/) Research Associate, Department of Computer Science, University of Tokyo ------------------- 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