From: skaller <skaller@maxtal.com.au>
To: Gerd.Stolpmann@darmstadt.netsurf.de
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: speed versus C
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 05:15:45 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <37FE42E1.3D0B9ADE@maxtal.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <99100800493701.23684@ice>
Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
>
> >Also, where the library lacks certain facilities, it is occasionally
> >harder to provide efficient data structures than in C. These problems
> >are not intrinsic to ocaml, but can be solved by carefully considered
> >extension
> >of the standard library.
>
> Any ideas?
Sure: too many, and not enough ocaml experience.
But a good place to start would be to examine the C++ Standard Template
Library.
There are various 'classical' data structures which should be available:
singly linked lists, doubly linked lists, arrays of fixed length,
arrays of variable length, binary trees with various balancing acts,
quad trees, b-trees, hash tables, graphs, directed graphs, DAGS, stacks,
queues,
priority queues, ..
There are also some more exotic ones: a generic garbage collector for
arbitrary resources, for example, would be interesting to consider.
There are also a lot of numerical algorithms known :-)
> It's only from experience, and I have often good
> results with lists or trees.
Yes, but they do not perform at all well when random access is
required.
> The world is full of such 'micky mouse' programs, and they are really used. Not
> freeing memory is very common if the amount of allocated data is not very high
> at all, or if the program runs only for a short time. There is nothing bad to
> say against it.
I am not saying anything 'bad' against it, just that in such cases,
it is unlikely performance matters either: we should be considering
library code and intensive applications using it, when comparing
say, C/C++ and ocaml, since that is where the benefits of one or the
other really start to count.
> > However, C++ allows finalisation and ocaml doesn't,
> >which is a serious problem in ocaml when it is needed.
>
> Up to now I did not need finalisation, so I have no experience.
I believe I would not design a program requiring it,
but my task is to implement an existing specification that
does require it. So I must find a solution, abandon the project,
modify the specifications, or try another language.
--
John Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au
1/10 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia
homepage: http://www.maxtal.com.au/~skaller
downloads: http://www.triode.net.au/~skaller
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-10-09 23:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-10-03 21:35 Jan Brosius
1999-10-04 21:59 ` skaller
1999-10-05 23:22 ` chet
1999-10-06 10:22 ` skaller
1999-10-05 20:20 ` Gerd Stolpmann
1999-10-06 15:21 ` William Chesters
1999-10-06 22:49 ` Gerd Stolpmann
1999-10-07 10:26 ` Michel Quercia
1999-10-07 10:46 ` William Chesters
1999-10-07 15:48 ` Pierre Weis
1999-10-07 19:21 ` Gerd Stolpmann
1999-10-08 0:26 ` William Chesters
1999-10-10 16:27 ` Gerd Stolpmann
1999-10-10 20:48 ` William Chesters
1999-10-10 23:54 ` Alain Frisch
1999-10-11 17:58 ` William Chesters
1999-10-12 14:36 ` Ocaml Machine (was Re: speed versus C) Alain Frisch
1999-10-12 15:32 ` David Monniaux
1999-10-12 15:42 ` Alain Frisch
1999-10-11 19:32 ` speed versus C John Prevost
1999-10-11 20:50 ` Gerd Stolpmann
1999-10-12 20:07 ` skaller
1999-10-08 9:56 ` Pierre Weis
1999-10-07 15:25 ` Markus Mottl
1999-10-07 6:56 ` skaller
1999-10-07 12:37 ` Xavier Urbain
1999-10-07 22:18 ` Gerd Stolpmann
1999-10-08 19:15 ` skaller [this message]
1999-10-08 13:40 ` Anton Moscal
1999-10-06 7:58 ` Reply to: " Jens Olsson
1999-10-07 13:00 STARYNKEVITCH Basile
1999-10-08 6:57 Pascal Brisset
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.03.9910081713230.31666-100001@post.tepkom.ru>
1999-10-10 4:51 ` skaller
1999-10-11 9:08 ` Anton Moscal
1999-10-12 13:21 Damien Doligez
1999-10-12 20:42 ` skaller
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=37FE42E1.3D0B9ADE@maxtal.com.au \
--to=skaller@maxtal.com.au \
--cc=Gerd.Stolpmann@darmstadt.netsurf.de \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
/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).