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 mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB427BBAF for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:02:04 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnkDABMx6kzAbSoIYGdsb2JhbACDSpELjggLHyUEHqxMkHyBIoM2cwQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,237,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="79986575" Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 22 Nov 2010 18:02:04 +0100 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de X-Envelope-To: Received: from localhost (okapi.in-berlin.de [192.109.42.117]) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id oAMH235n025184 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:02:03 +0100 Received: from e178005123.adsl.alicedsl.de (e178005123.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.5.123]) by webmail.in-berlin.de (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:02:03 +0100 Message-ID: <20101122180203.2126497sau3zukgb@webmail.in-berlin.de> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:02:03 +0100 From: "Oliver Bandel" To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Is OCaml fast? References: <1290434674.16005.354.camel@thinkpad> In-Reply-To: <1290434674.16005.354.camel@thinkpad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.3.3 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 X-Spam: no; 0.00; bandel:01 in-berlin:01 ocaml:01 gerd:01 stolpmann:01 ocaml:01 ocamlc:01 bytecode:01 imho:01 wrote:01 oliver:01 oliver:01 compilers:01 caml-list:01 compiling:02 Zitat von "Gerd Stolpmann" : [...] > (I remember Ocaml was #1 > at the shootout a few years ago, faster than C.) So maybe a good > opportunity to post better Ocaml solutions there? [...] Yes I also remember that. I hope that the new OCaml compilers did not make OCaml lessperformance by enhancing other features. And I don't realy think so. But were the old code-snippets emoved, or what was going on, that OCaml degraded that much? From my experience - normally using ocamlc for most of my OCaml programs - it's even fast enough with this bytecode. If it will be not fast enough, I have an option as a joker: compiling to native code. :) Doing this is rather psychologically, as I like to have a potential for enhancement. :) If you really always need the best performance, of course compiling to native code will be best choice. But at lest for my work I have not found out really bottlenecks, and always was faster than doing things in Perl or Python or so. Learning OCaml IMHO does make sense in any case. :) But be aware one big disadvantage: if you have learned Ocaml, this may absolutely kill your motivation in learning other languages =20 afterwards.So,if you need some other languages for your job, learn =20 them first, and learn OCaml after this, for your pleasure. But you may never have fun at work then, until your boss allows you to =20 use OCaml. And this is not a joke, I mean it as I wrote it! Ciao, Oliver