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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C8ABBAF for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:33:09 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnkDAGZG6kzAbSoIYGdsb2JhbACDSpEPjggLHyUEHqxvkQuBIoM2cwSQWw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,237,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="80717879" Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 22 Nov 2010 19:33:09 +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 oAMIX8KA000367 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:33:08 +0100 Received: from e178028192.adsl.alicedsl.de (e178028192.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.28.192]) by webmail.in-berlin.de (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:33:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20101122193308.16394trg49p6xfms@webmail.in-berlin.de> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:33:08 +0100 From: "Oliver Bandel" To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Is OCaml fast? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 ocaml:01 snippets:01 ubc:98 oliver:01 oliver:01 caml-list:01 executables:01 argument:02 optimizing:03 languages:03 languages:03 programming:03 Hi, Zitat von "Thanassis Tsiodras" : > I apologize beforehand if this is not the forum to ask. > > I am on the fence about whether to learn OCaml or not, and while > reading an article called "Why OCaml" > (http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Software/Ocaml/why_ocaml.html), I saw > that OCaml was praised for the speed of the executables it generates - > and was referred to, speed-wise, as "second to none", except C and > C++. [...] I remember one argument on that topic, many years ago, maybe rom Xavier leoy or other core developers, and it goes like that: Benchmarks on such small problem solving is ONE comparision, what makes sense, but it must be added by comparisions of "optimizations" of the code in large applications. The lower the level of the öanguage the harder it is to keep track of possible optimizations on a very big program. But the higher the language level is, the easier it is to keep that in mind. So: when optmizing small snippets of code this helps optimizing performance in maybe critical sections, but to get an overview on all interdependencies is close to unmanagable with lower leveled languages. I have not seen a comparison of performance in this repect, but I also would think higher level languages might be a better choice here. Any comparisions on that scale of programming, which you know of? Then please throw in a link here. Thanks. Ciao, Oliver