From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 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 66E09BC6B for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:35:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.roomandboard.com (mail.roomandboard.com [66.84.219.55]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l29FZUg4003014 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:35:31 +0100 Received: from selma.roomandboard.com ([192.168.101.46]) by mail.roomandboard.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 09:35:29 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Interactive technical computing Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 09:35:29 -0600 Message-ID: <3D1E4D9CA9BCE04D8F2B55F203AE4CE30666AB92@selma.roomandboard.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Caml-list] Interactive technical computing Thread-Index: AcdiYJEZpDRTnRgKSR2EiLMFU42IwA== From: "Robert Fischer" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Mar 2007 15:35:29.0476 (UTC) FILETIME=[91239840:01C76260] X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 45F17EC2.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 bytecode:01 ocaml:01 bytecode:01 ocaml's:01 python's:01 statically:01 bindings:01 beginner's:01 bug:01 beginners:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 binaries:01 slower:01 Performance of using F# linking into native applications is better than = using OCaml bytecode and linking into native applications? Is F# faster = than OCaml bytecode these days? Is the OCaml bytecode's link into = dynamic libraries somehow slowing things down? I'm still having trouble seeing what you're getting at -- sorry if I'm = being dense. ~~ Robert. -----Original Message----- From: caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr [mailto:caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr]On Behalf Of skaller Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 9:22 AM To: Robert Fischer Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Interactive technical computing On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 08:13 -0600, Robert Fischer wrote: > Performance of Ocaml's bytecode is slower than F#? Really? I wrote: > > As long as you play within the bounds of their VM. This is no = different than Ocaml. >=20 > Performance is different :) That's why I use Ocaml native code > exclusively, which doesn't support dynamic loading (yet :) I have no idea about performance of F#: I'm talking about using a Debian based Linux operating system which uses dynamic loading of high performance machine binaries. I once implement a Python interpreter in Ocaml, call Vyper. One of the reasons I gave up was that to extend it with the equivalent of Python's C modules, I had to write the equivalent code in Ocaml and *statically* link it into the program. The main reason for doing this wasn't performance, but to provide bindings to C libraries. --=20 John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net _______________________________________________ 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