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 mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12134BBAF for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:56:17 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuECAMfV60zAbSoIYGdsb2JhbACDTpEbjgQLHyUEHq1FkGoNgRWDNnME X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,244,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="67930319" Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 23 Nov 2010 23:56:16 +0100 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de X-Envelope-To: Received: from first (e178040185.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.40.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id oANMuFeU015818 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:56:15 +0100 Received: by first (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 90B6B4401D3; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:56:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:56:15 +0100 From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Is OCaml fast? Message-ID: <20101123225615.GA28697@siouxsie> References: <538372.76249.qm@web111505.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <538372.76249.qm@web111505.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 X-Spam: no; 0.00; in-berlin:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 afaik:01 ubc:98 wrote:01 oliver:01 oliver:01 caml-list:01 executables:01 functional:02 functional:02 languages:03 overloaded:07 generates:07 On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 05:55:02AM -0800, Dario Teixeira wrote: > Hi, > > > 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++. > > Yes, Ocaml is fast (more on that later), but you should consider speed > as just the icing in the cake. [...] But if it were not performant enough, I (and many others too, I think) would consider it being a nice toy language. AFAIK in the past, functional langauges were not adapted, because they were very unperformant - at least this is one reason. Another reason might be, that the available functional languages in the past were overloaded with parenthess ;) Ciao, Oliver