caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Carr <jfc@mit.edu>
To: Pierre Chopin <pierre@punchup.com>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] exn vs option
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:38:25 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201204042038.q34KcPcj001730@outgoing.mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGyUfm0SkjTVZ4hcQRNGThWWzGoXbbVnBXHBDcr1jP=6cFCMkQ@mail.gmail.com>


When thinking about performance, consider the "try" keyword to take time
to execute.  A try block pushes an exception handler onto a stack and
pops the stack on exit.  The try block may also interfere with tail call
optimizations.

A loop like

  for i = 0 to 10000000 do try ... done

executes "try" 10000001 times and will run much more slowly than

  try for i = 0 to 10000000 do ... done

where "try" only executes once.

I use options where performance matters, in frequently executed code
where the amount of computation is not much more than the overhead of
a try...with.  For example, I have variants of List.assoc that return
options instead of raising exceptions.

Where performance doesn't matter, i.e. the amount of code in the block
is large or the block is rarely executed, I use exceptions or options
based on convenience.

> I benchmarked two programs, in one case the main function throw an exception
> that is caught, in the other the function returns an option that is pattern
> matched on.
> 
> I noticed that, whether the exception is thrown or not, the option version is
> always faster.
> 
> Is there any case where it makes sense, performance wise, to use exception
> instead of 'a option ?

  reply	other threads:[~2012-04-04 20:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-04-04 20:25 Pierre Chopin
2012-04-04 20:38 ` John Carr [this message]
2012-04-04 22:10   ` Julien Verlaguet
2012-04-05  1:29     ` Francois Berenger
2012-04-05  6:45 ` Raphael Proust
2012-04-05  7:53   ` Benedikt Grundmann
2012-04-05  9:05 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2012-04-05  9:50   ` Daniel Bünzli
2012-04-11 10:26     ` Goswin von Brederlow
2012-04-11 10:32       ` David House
2012-04-11 10:36         ` David House
2012-04-05 20:19   ` Pierre Chopin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=201204042038.q34KcPcj001730@outgoing.mit.edu \
    --to=jfc@mit.edu \
    --cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
    --cc=pierre@punchup.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).