From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA5DBC6E for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:04:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pih-relay04.plus.net (pih-relay04.plus.net [212.159.14.131]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l51C4UxP012185 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:04:30 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by pih-relay04.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1Hu5rn-0007c4-D0 for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:04:27 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Comparison of OCaml and MLton for numerics Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:58:58 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <5195a210705302250u6a9e5adey4ed857480f9e5cd8@mail.gmail.com> <891bd3390706010429g2ac722bfmc6932b15393a62b9@mail.gmail.com> <20070601214326.e0a939a6.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> In-Reply-To: <20070601214326.e0a939a6.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706011258.59177.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 46600B4E.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 yaron:01 minsky:01 functors:01 ocaml:01 functors:01 lri:01 signoles:01 penalties:98 frog:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 modules:02 modules:02 On Friday 01 June 2007 12:43:26 Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > Yaron Minsky wrote: > > I could not agree with this sentiment more. Stephen actually now works > > at Jane Street, and since his arrival he's taught us a number of > > techniques for using modules and functors to organize and factor code > > more > > effectively. Some of these techniques were obviously born in the context > > of Mlton, where they have no performance penalty. It's downright > > annoying to have to avoid these techniques in performance-sensitive code > > in OCaml. In other words, factoring out with functors and modules is > > good style, but OCaml penalizes you for it. > > Can the defunctorizor help? > > http://www.lri.fr/~signoles/ocamldefun/manual.html > > Erik Indeed, after you defunctorize what performance penalties are left by modules? -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. OCaml for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?e