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 mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA18BBAF for ; Mon, 17 May 2010 09:53:28 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUCALuS8EtbeRvkkWdsb2JhbACRf4saegEBAQEJCwoHEQMfugCFEASHUQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,246,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="59456197" Received: from 25.mail-out.ovh.net ([91.121.27.228]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 17 May 2010 09:53:28 +0200 Received: (qmail 28035 invoked by uid 503); 17 May 2010 08:06:55 -0000 Received: from b9.ovh.net (HELO mail395.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.59) by 25.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 17 May 2010 08:06:55 -0000 Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 17 May 2010 07:53:27 -0000 Received: from ns0.ovh.net (HELO localhost) (213.186.33.20) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 17 May 2010 07:53:27 -0000 Received: from mp-57040.rocqadm.inria.fr (mp-57040.rocqadm.inria.fr [128.93.57.40]) by imp.ovh.net (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Mon, 17 May 2010 09:53:27 +0200 Message-ID: <20100517095327.14271x0lnao43sao@imp.ovh.net> Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 09:53:27 +0200 From: forum@x9c.fr To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: RE: [Caml-list] about OcamIL References: <951508.20587.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <201005061233.07551.peng.zang@gmail.com> <07b101caf08b$3e5022c0$baf06840$@com> <088201caf1ce$b5060cb0$1f122610$@com> <20100512151137.26894ywcpv71ixvk@imp.ovh.net> <012601caf351$e9a362e0$bcea28a0$@com> <44A730DD-54EB-4A1C-BD1A-6E9EFB31B5A2@x9c.fr> <01f001caf536$c923b4c0$5b6b1e40$@com> In-Reply-To: <01f001caf536$c923b4c0$5b6b1e40$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.3.5) X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 17723634859955979231 X-Spam: no; 0.00; bigloo:01 bigloo:01 afaict:01 trade-offs:01 2.0:98 insult:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 generics:01 defined:02 slower:02 seems:03 fuzzy:03 superfluous:04 types:05 Jon Harrop a =E9crit=A0: > Xavier Clerc: >> Le 14 mai 2010 =E0 12:40, Jon Harrop a =E9crit : >> > Xavier Clerc wrote: >> >> Limiting myself to the JVM... >> >> Moreover, at least Scala and Bigloo deliver excellent performances. >> > >> > I have benchmarks where the JVM is well over 10x slower than .NET. So >> > I do not regard any JVM-based language as "high performance". >> >> Quite ironically, by scratching the surface, one would discover that >> both quoted projects can also target .NET (not tested that though). > > Does Bigloo.NET support value types? Does Scala.NET use .NET (2.0) generic= s? > Not AFAICT. Name dropping them in the context of "high performance" langua= ge > implementations is more than a little bit silly... First off, public insult seems quite superfluous. We should be able to handle a heated debate without resorting to that. And I still wait for a clear statement of your level for "high performance", and references to benchmarks that back up your claims in this thread. As you seem to come from an academic background, I expect facts and references, and not ad hominem attacks and fuzzy unbacked claims. Unless you show that neither Bigloo nor Scala meet your (to be defined) criteria for "high performance", my counterexamples still stand. It may just end up that we have different perceptions of "high performance", and of the trade-offs we are going to make in our language / platform choice= s. Regards, Xavier Clerc