From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F7ABC57 for ; Fri, 14 May 2010 13:51:11 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoIEAD/W7EtbeR7Se2dsb2JhbACReYwZAQEWIgMfvESFEAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,229,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="59354998" Received: from 27.mail-out.ovh.net ([91.121.30.210]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 14 May 2010 13:51:11 +0200 Received: (qmail 11289 invoked by uid 503); 14 May 2010 11:55:17 -0000 Received: from b7.ovh.net (HELO mail193.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.57) by 27.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 14 May 2010 11:55:17 -0000 Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 14 May 2010 11:51:10 -0000 Received: from 81-64-225-224.rev.numericable.fr (HELO ?192.168.0.10?) (forum%x9c.fr@81.64.225.224) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 14 May 2010 11:51:08 -0000 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] about OcamIL Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: "forum@x9c.fr" In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 13:51:08 +0200 Cc: forum@x9c.fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <42913A94-649F-47D3-9695-ED558A4C6E4D@x9c.fr> References: <951508.20587.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <201005061233.07551.peng.zang@gmail.com> <07b101caf08b$3e5022c0$baf06840$@com> <088201caf1ce$b5060cb0$1f122610$@com> <20100512151137.26894ywcpv71ixvk@imp.ovh.net> <012601caf351$e9a362e0$bcea28a0$@com> To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 4119667760399778783 X-Ovh-Remote: 81.64.225.224 (81-64-225-224.rev.numericable.fr) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-Spam-Check: DONE|U 0.5/N X-Spam: no; 0.00; eray:01 ozkural:01 bigloo:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 data:02 off-topic:02 implemented:02 slower:02 slower:02 mpi:04 fri:05 computing:05 papers:06 Le 14 mai 2010 =E0 12:58, Eray Ozkural a =E9crit : > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Jon Harrop > wrote: >> Xavier Clerc wrote: >>> Limiting myself to the JVM... >>> Moreover, at least Scala and Bigloo deliver excellent performances. >>=20 >> I have benchmarks where the JVM is well over 10x slower than .NET. So = I do >> not regard any JVM-based language as "high performance". >=20 > You got a point there. >=20 > JVM has a ridiculous performance, not fitting for any computationally = expensive > operation. At best it's some kind of mudware for data plumbing and > simple network > applications. The memory system, whatever it is doing, is absolutely > terrible. I've > implemented some semi-sophisticated information retrieval code on it > (related to a > search engine) and I've seen that it's not only much slower but > horribly bloated > memory-wise as well. You can only use it for toy problems. >=20 > And there are even papers using Java/MPI for high performance = computing! > Using Java still turns any computer to a Commodore 64, so why are > people using it? If it is not considered as too much off-topic for this mailing list, could one of you provide references to such benchmarks rather than just state that they exist. Regards, Xavier Clerc=