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 mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 452ECBC6B for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:57:38 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAOZBC0fUnw6Gnmdsb2JhbACCN4wRAgEBBwQGERg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,249,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="17760317" Received: from pih-relay08.plus.net ([212.159.14.134]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 09 Oct 2007 17:57:37 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by pih-relay08.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1IfHSj-0003tL-0x for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:57:37 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Correct way of programming a CGI script Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:48:47 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <20071009135146.M36738@cs.unm.edu> <1191943545.5966.11.camel@rosella.wigram> In-Reply-To: <1191943545.5966.11.camel@rosella.wigram> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200710091648.47587.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 buffer:01 ocaml:01 syntax:01 frog:98 char:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 strings:01 strings:01 data:02 data:02 append:02 append:02 structures:02 On Tuesday 09 October 2007 16:25:45 skaller wrote: > It's not clear then you're using "strings". It never was. The concrete data structures used to represent strings in these languages are different. So you've just picked a concrete data structure with slow append and showed that its append is slower than a concrete data structure with slow random access and worse memory usage. This is just swings and roundabouts. You might like to compare the performance of setting a single char in a string in Python and OCaml... > C++ strings provide all the operations of both String and Buffer > and do not pay this cost. Can C++ escape a string using OCaml syntax? -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e