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 OAA28113; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:22:30 +0100 (MET)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA25786 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:22:29 +0100 (MET)
Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id gAQDMNX05585;
	Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:22:23 +0100 (MET)
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA28075; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:22:23 +0100 (MET)
From: Pierre Weis <pierre.weis@inria.fr>
Message-Id: <200211261322.OAA28075@pauillac.inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Some clarifications to the language shootout page
In-Reply-To: <3DE34238.9050804@kfunigraz.ac.at> from Siegfried Gonzi at "Nov 26, 102 10:43:20 am"
To: siegfried.gonzi@kfunigraz.ac.at (Siegfried Gonzi)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:22:23 +0100 (MET)
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr, siegfried.gonzi@kfunigraz.ac.at
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

Hi list,

Here is the conclusion of our mail exchange with Manuel:

> ====
> Just one more thing, I have changed the Scheme code a very little bit to
> 
> make it more similar to the Caml code. That is, I have changed the 
> construction of the row vectors. The original initialization 
> 
>   (mx (make-vector rows 0.0))
> 
> was breaking the CFA because mx what not 
> correctly typed vector of vector of double. I have replaced it with:
> 
>   (mx (make-vector rows (make-vector 0 0.0)))
> 
> Then, you should compile with:
> 
>   bigloo -v2 -Obench foo.scm  -copt "-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer"
> 
> On my machine with this two modifications I see an improvement of about 17%.
> It is still insufficient to defeat Ocaml but we are getting a little closer  [:-)] 
> 
> -- 
> Manuel

Hi Manuel,

As you should have noticed, I did not try to optimize anything in the
Caml code: I just tried a litteral translation from Scheme to Caml. In
effect, the original Caml code was not optimally clear (difficult to
read and difficult to compile) and was compared to a (relatively)
clear Scheme code. Mere translation of the Scheme code to Caml just
improves the runtime by a factor of 2 or so. As you surely know
already, I was obliged to change the initialization, since

   (mx (make-vector rows 0.0))

is ill-typed in Caml.

This is amazing that now this well-typed Caml version, once translated
back to Scheme, improves the original Scheme version!

I think that this proves, once more, that our languages are not as
different as people think they are :)

Cheers,

Pierre Weis

INRIA, Projet Cristal, Pierre.Weis@inria.fr, http://pauillac.inria.fr/~weis/


-------------------
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