From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA25013; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:17:01 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA24990 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:16:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from btr0x1.rz.uni-bayreuth.de (btr0x1.rz.uni-bayreuth.de [132.180.8.29]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5JKGwSH032715 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:16:58 +0200 Received: from btn1x1.inf.uni-bayreuth.de (btn1x1.inf.uni-bayreuth.de [132.180.192.6]) by btr0x1.rz.uni-bayreuth.de (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i5JKGPbK013756; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:16:25 +0200 (MEST) Received: from inf.uni-bayreuth.de (btn1x1.inf.uni-bayreuth.de [132.180.192.6]) by btn1x1.inf.uni-bayreuth.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with SMTP id i5JKGO73003361; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:16:24 +0200 Received: from pd95fc928.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.95.201.40]) (SquirrelMail authenticated user wmueller) by btn1x1.inf.uni-bayreuth.de with HTTP; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:16:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37662.217.95.201.40.1087676184.squirrel@btn1x1.inf.uni-bayreuth.de> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:16:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Benchmark suggestion From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_M=FCller?=" To: In-Reply-To: References: <34996.217.95.201.40.1087635862.squirrel@btn1x1.inf.uni-bayreuth.de> X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Cc: X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.7) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 40D49F3A.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 mueller:99 affairs:99 python:01 swig:01 python:01 swig:01 ocaml:01 opengl:02 opengl:02 benchmark:02 benchmark:02 benchmarking:02 benchmarking:02 wolfgang:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > I think one has to define the motivation for the benchmark. Is it > language evangelism, i.e. making people aware of OCaml? or of FP > languages generally? If language evangelism is the point, then one > should look at *all* the factors that go into picking new languages. The > devil's in the details. No, for me personally language evangelism is not the point. Language evaluation is the point. If it comes out that the best language for solving my problems is actually JAVA, I swallow and say "yes, thanks for this information" (this is the current state of affairs, by the way). If it turns out that Python/SWIG is what would do best what I need and I can motivate people to do that, I'd do Python/SWIG. > Actually I think comparative benchmarking for some goal other than > evangelism is kinda pointless. How do you define "evangelism"? The word means "spreading the good message". So this means benchmarking is good for finding out if a language is useful? Yes, I think this is what a benchmark is about, right? And yes, ease of mixed-language programming could be a useful parameter. > Otherwise why are you bothering? You are wasting your time. I do mean > *time*, with my OpenGL device driver background I'm very conscious of > how much production time benchmarking consumes. I certainly do not have your OpenGL device driver background :-) and I spare you with my definition of what "real work" is :-D . In any case, I would be interested in looking at a set of benchmarks that tells me if what I want to achieve can be done easily and efficiently in a given language or not, without me having to write too many comparative benchmarks myself. One per week is clearly too many for me. Ballpark figures are useful already. Cheers, Wolfgang ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners