[Caml-list] Re: c is 4 times faster than ocaml?

["Jack Andrews" <effbiae@ivorykite.com>]

John Prevost said:
>> was the C hard to read or the O'Caml?  Any style tips for my caml?
>
> Mmm.  They were both pretty blinding.
my c style is inspired by arthur whitney of kx.com.  he is a genius.  his
language, k, is superquick.  it's an APL dialect.  he's written kdb in k,
and it goes like the clappers.  the most impressive thing is that k comes
in at <100Kb and kdb <50Kb.  he's a genius.

> The basic idea is that you would take something that you might
> otherwise do as a long sequence of calls and turn it into a single
> call.

yeah, i'm familiar with the pattern.  basically, i want to write my dbms
core in ocaml -- my only other option at the moment is c. i have to say
that looking at the -S output i am given great hope that ocaml has got
what it takes.  i thought i'd never find a functional language that was
fast, but i always believed it was possible to write a fast compiler for
one!  (i was brought up on miranda and prolog)

> ... but
> since the main idea is mainly just to amortize the necessary overhead
> across a larger amount of data, it should be preferable.

the only interface where such amortizing could occur is the API to the
database core, but i want to write the core in ocaml and i think it's
possible (see thread 'what is this magic?')

> Your chosen testcase has more necessary overhead than most, mainly
> because it's interacting heavily with a datastructure *meant* to
> interoperate with C.

you mean ocaml is not a suitable language for developing a dbms?

thanks,



jack

-------------------
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