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=1.4 required=5.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL 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 50975BC69 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:49:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.176]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l51BnpfD029219 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:49:51 +0200 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m28so578420wag for ; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 04:49:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=RxZ1WweaO0Ndy8fL4mHsoEAkyMWz5coTuZwPTwKtJmJ7yTf4uM6PqedGZ3b2QdWiZEOuaKFOqgOXILp+ovRhPuKFHP3vDwD1KrHivDJ2iSfaYl6KiO+cFoprx5ssO3JIld3X/qDUoXJD0XhqElUyZ6137lozuHfTIwDVmHO7Jks= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=Fsedoi7kMppuc13u6gA51pEkNb7//6mQ3wcoe2xblSvf4n9yHv1uQkVbfVWU7IpO5LjzZSbUuCtGJtKeHsUUSG84dQtBcRH0kHF+iVD5kdssShlOvx+YPhyWuYd7XClo3ECOhW5H9cRCs2YHeiwHfPugka93N5/sxyq98xomA9w= Received: by 10.114.13.1 with SMTP id 1mr1604061wam.1180698590009; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 04:49:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.79.14 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 04:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3d13dcfc0706010449k53f1c364gfd4db47c7c258725@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:49:44 +0200 From: "David MENTRE" Sender: david.mentre@gmail.com To: "Yaron Minsky" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Comparison of OCaml and MLton for numerics Cc: "Alain Frisch" , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr, skaller In-Reply-To: <891bd3390706010429g2ac722bfmc6932b15393a62b9@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5195a210705302250u6a9e5adey4ed857480f9e5cd8@mail.gmail.com> <200705311008.16662.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <5195a210705310222p6aa8482fr70e7bf2b2b631b72@mail.gmail.com> <200705311127.28639.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <465F3E8C.10404@inria.fr> <1180660974.15528.126.camel@rosella.wigram> <465FAF0B.5060700@inria.fr> <891bd3390706010429g2ac722bfmc6932b15393a62b9@mail.gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 17bf76738f4b65c6 X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 466007DF.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 yaron:01 minsky:01 yminsky:01 functors:01 ocaml:01 parallelism:01 cpan-like:01 caml-list:01 cornell:01 modules:02 naive:03 repository:04 overhead:04 solved:04 Hello, 2007/6/1, Yaron Minsky : > In other words, > factoring out with functors and modules is good style, but OCaml penalizes > you for it. A naive and somewhat provocative question: is the performance penalty a real issue in your production code or just a known overhead that is easily solved by having a more powerful computer? In other words, is the complexity price of better optimizations justified considering its real impact in production code? And if you consider this debate in a more general view: OCaml has a number of known deficiencies that pop up regularly on this list (new calmp4 doc, handling of parallelism for multi-core machines, lack of a recognised CPAN-like OCaml repository, etc.). We all know that the INRIA team has limited manpower. On which topic should they invest their time? How can we work, as a community, to solve those issues? Yours, david