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 JAA15259; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:33:07 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA14959 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:33:06 +0100 (MET) Received: from jerry.kfunigraz.ac.at (GIGAJERRY.kfunigraz.ac.at [143.50.55.161]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id gAT8X5112915 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:33:05 +0100 (MET) Received: from tom.kfunigraz.ac.at (mc_tom [10.10.1.160]) by jerry.kfunigraz.ac.at (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id gAT8X3m21499; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:33:03 +0100 (MET) Received: from kfunigraz.ac.at (IGAM08AV.kfunigraz.ac.at [143.50.39.35]) by tom.kfunigraz.ac.at (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id gAT8X3A25908; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:33:03 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3DE7263A.1030109@kfunigraz.ac.at> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:32:58 +0100 From: Siegfried Gonzi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr CC: isaac gouy Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Some clarifications to the language shootout page References: <20021127205032.52853.qmail@web20512.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk isaac gouy wrote: >Although the Great Language Shootout is no longer >updated, your new faster imlementations can be sent to >the Great Win32 Language Shootout: > >http://dada.perl.it/shootout/index.html > I am not sure how the original language shootout page obtained their results, but the new code improves the situation dramatically (I did just test double precision because I do not see any sense in using integers): The more or less original language shootout page benchmark (dimension=30, repetitions=300): Celeron 1000MHz, RAM 256MB, SuSE 8.0 Linux: Bigloo: 0.16/0.14/0.01s OCAML (Weis): 0.12/0.12/0.0s OCAML (Mottl): 0.6/0.6/0.0s C: 0.06/0.06/0.0s for 600 repetitions: Bigloo: 0.3/0.3/0.02s OCAML (Weis): 0.23/0.23/0.0s OCAML (Mottl): 1.1/1.1/0.01s C: 0.11/0.11/0.01s I think under best circumstances an OCaml code can come close to C by a factor of 2 and Bigloo can come close to C by a factor of 3 if you use it for numerically intense calculations . In reality the situation is often better. I have a Bigloo and equivalent C++ program which extracts numbers from text files. And reading in a 50MB file takes in Bigloo (note: ordinary Scheme types and not native Bigloo ones) just the same time (30 seconds) as in C++. I would always prefer Scheme (Bigloo) because fiddling with types is always required by the OCaml compiler (it can be as awful as with Clean) whereas in Bigloo you will have to resort to type issues when you strieve for speed (this is often a very small part of the code). S. Gonzi ------------------- 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