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 MAA28293; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:47:56 +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 MAA28289 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:47:55 +0100 (MET) X-SPAM-Warning: Sending machine is listed in blackholes.five-ten-sg.com Received: from web41214.mail.yahoo.com (web41214.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.47]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id h03Blsr12030 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:47:54 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <20030103114753.99228.qmail@web41214.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [195.224.189.78] by web41214.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 03 Jan 2003 03:47:53 PST Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 03:47:53 -0800 (PST) From: Noel Welsh Subject: Re: [Caml-list] speed To: onlyclimb , caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <3E15B3B3.3040106@163.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk --- onlyclimb wrote: > Is it normal that my ocaml program is only 2 times > faster than the java > counterpart ?(using the same method and complied > into native. jdk is 1.4.1 It depends entirely on the program. I wouldn't expect a huge difference in speed in, say, an HTTP server where most of the time is spent waiting for the disk. In numeric applications I would expect O'Caml to be significantly faster than Java. Noel __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.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