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 E4D1CBB9A for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 02:36:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ptb-relay04.plus.net (ptb-relay02.plus.net [212.159.14.213]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j9M0aohJ023225 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 02:36:50 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=chetara) by ptb-relay04.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1ET7NS-0006C2-NR for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:36:50 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The Bytecode Interpreter... Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:32:42 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <3d13dcfc0510210427g5ea98df7s@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200510220132.43276.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 435989A2.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 bytecode:01 ocaml:01 bytecode:01 optimise:01 ocamlopt:01 ocaml:01 ...:98 frog:98 wrote:01 slower:01 native:02 caml:02 match:02 objective:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Friday 21 October 2005 23:24, 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). You may be interested in Basile's ocamljit. > About the only thing the shootout proves is that ocaml bytecode has > very good memory use compared to Java. and brevity. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. Objective CAML for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists