From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr 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 2F409BB9A for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:31:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j9MIV7Ro025853 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:31:07 +0200 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 UAA22205 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:31:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from first.in-berlin.de (e178057235.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.57.235]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j9MIV6wR024634 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:31:06 +0200 Received: by first.in-berlin.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id D7296172DDD; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:49:14 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:49:14 +0200 From: Oliver Bandel To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The Bytecode Interpreter... Message-ID: <20051021234914.GA1145@first.in-berlin.de> References: <3d13dcfc0510210427g5ea98df7s@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 435A856B.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 435A856A.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; oliver:01 bandel:01 oliver:01 in-berlin:01 caml-list:01 bytecode:01 ocaml:01 bytecode:01 optimise:01 ocamlopt:01 ocaml:01 langauge:01 ...:98 wrote:01 slower:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 11:24:10AM +1300, Jonathan Roewen wrote: > I've noted on the computer language shootout that ocaml bytecode is > slow compared to Java. I'm curious, are there any plans to optimise > the shit out of the bytecode interpreter? I know it has been a goal to > not be much more than 1.3x slower than C -- but this only covers > ocamlopt/native code. Don't you think bytecode should have some > endeavour to match or better some other language too (Java seems best > case to me in this scenario). > > About the only thing the shootout proves is that ocaml bytecode has > very good memory use compared to Java. You will have the best performance and maybe the best memory usage, when writing all your programs in Assembler. Well, I really like fast langauges, but performance is not all (even if all is nothing when the performance is bad). Is performance the only or the biggest thing you look for, when deciding fo a programming langauge? Ciao, Oliver