From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 546A9BC32 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:38:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from ptb-relay02.plus.net (ptb-relay02.plus.net [212.159.14.213]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j2FNcHPv016816 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:38:18 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=chetara) by ptb-relay02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1DBLc9-0006Vo-DG for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:38:17 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml troll on Slashdot Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:39:19 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <42363A86.6010309@1969.ws> <172f01077499b3d417604d0ad31f2bdb@cs.unm.edu> In-Reply-To: <172f01077499b3d417604d0ad31f2bdb@cs.unm.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200503152339.20237.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 423771E9.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 inherently:01 arrays:01 arrays:01 haskell:01 bool:01 ocaml:01 frog:98 wrote:01 short:01 slower:01 imperative:01 imperative:01 thread:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Tuesday 15 March 2005 23:07, William D.Neumann wrote: > His point seems to be that programming in a > "functional style"[1] is inherently slower than an imperative style > because a list or a map have different performance characteristics than > do arrays. True, but don't forget that using arrays does not imply imperative programming in general. For example, I partook in a thread on c.l.functional recently, comparing the performance of the sieve of Erasthenes (I know, a microbenchmark) in different languages. With a purely functional implementation of arrays, the Haskell implementation beat C++ (with vector) and was even competing with OCaml for a short while! -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. Objective CAML for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists