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 concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE0CBB81 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:38:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp15.wanadoo.fr (smtp15.wanadoo.fr [193.252.23.84]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j99EcFGY011523 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:38:15 +0200 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1504.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 402D97000085 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:38:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wwinf1535 (wwinf1535 [172.22.146.109]) by mwinf1504.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 3B40C7000081; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:38:15 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20051009143815242.3B40C7000081@mwinf1504.wanadoo.fr Message-ID: <26802443.1128868695235.JavaMail.www@wwinf1535> From: yoann padioleau Reply-To: padator@wanadoo.fr To: Thomas Fischbacher , Yaron Minsky Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ray tracer language comparison Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [193.54.76.165] X-Wum-Nature: EMAIL-NATURE X-WUM-FROM: |~| X-WUM-TO: |~||~| X-WUM-CC: |~| X-WUM-REPLYTO: |~| Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:38:15 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 43492B57.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 functionnal:01 ocaml:01 caml-list:01 beginner's:01 ocaml:01 beginners:01 bug:01 ....:98 ...:98 ...:98 genius:98 cip:98 cip:98 lambda:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.2 required=5.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 > > > It seems like on the whole a more fitting riposte might have been to > > provide a version of the SBCL implementation that was 8x faster than > > Jon's, rather than to provide a crippled version of Jon's that was 8x > > slower. But to each his own, I suppose.... > > What? You call that elegant use of higher order functions "crippled"? > What a Blasphemy. I am really, truly outraged. But on what side are you ? Looking at your signature you seems like a big fan of functionnal programming but you are sending opposite signals in your post. It is not clear to me what is your point. What do you want to demonstrate ? > > ...on the other hand... > > [wicked thinking] > [most evil sniggering] > [pictures of the great evil genius playing the organ] > [more of all the above] > [ *clickediclick* ] > > Bring that man to be, he shalt be served as well! > > I just extended my analysis by another implementation in yet another > language. This time, it's "Steel Bank Common Lisp". As this is a Lisp as > well, I will be concerned primarily with comparing it against SBCL, but it > may also be nice to compare it with OCaml, or Objective Caml. > > There it is: > > http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf/raytracer/#sbcl > > -- > regards, tf@cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (o_ > Thomas Fischbacher - http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf //\ > (lambda (n) ((lambda (p q r) (p p q r)) (lambda (g x y) V_/_ > (if (= x 0) y (g g (- x 1) (* x y)))) n 1)) (Debian GNU) > > _______________________________________________ > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > >