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 PAA32099; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 15:39:21 +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 PAA32077 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 15:39:19 +0100 (MET) Received: from igw2.watson.ibm.com (igw2.watson.ibm.com [129.34.20.6]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h03EdHr25255; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 15:39:17 +0100 (MET) Received: from sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com [9.2.112.57]) by igw2.watson.ibm.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h03EdG317328; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 09:39:16 -0500 Received: from nautilus-chet.watson.ibm.com (sig-9-65-80-41.mts.ibm.com [9.65.80.41]) by sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h03EdDT40972; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 09:39:13 -0500 Received: from maine (maine [127.0.0.1]) by nautilus-chet.watson.ibm.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h02HqPXh005051; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 12:52:25 -0500 Message-Id: <200301021752.h02HqPXh005051@nautilus-chet.watson.ibm.com> To: Xavier Leroy cc: onlyclimb , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] speed In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 03 Jan 2003 14:32:21 +0100." <20030103143221.B29601@pauillac.inria.fr> References: <3E15B3B3.3040106@163.com> <20030103143221.B29601@pauillac.inria.fr> Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 12:52:25 -0500 From: Chet Murthy Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Not to contradict Xavier, because in essence, he is right -- Caml is indeed far faster than Java on any realistic applications in almost any area I have ever bothered to try -- but the story as to Java is actually rather complicated. (1) different JDKs exhibit remarkably different results on real-world examples, as their implementors have different backgrounds. I remember that the first JITs all did great on integer and floating-point loops, and that was _it_ -- the rest of the time, they were often slower than just a hack like inlining interpreter code-segments. This is just a human thing. (2) different JDKs from different manufacturers exhibit different behaviours. E.g., I find that the Sunsoft JDKs on Solaris are a lot faster than the Javasoft JDKs on Solaris. I also find (no, I'm not shilling for IBM) that IBM's JDK on Linux is a lot faster than Javasoft's. There are, again, social issues involved here, which I am not sure I am at liberty to discuss. That said, by and large I find that when you don't go near issues of allocation and interprocedural optimization, Java is and can be as fast as Caml. *However*, when you _do_ go near those things, e.g. if you do anything I/O or string-processing-intensive, well, go get a rocking chair, 'cos you're gonna have a looong wait. --chet-- P.S. Or get thee to a caml and get it done. *grin* ------------------- 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