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 KAA30864; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:18:20 +0200 (MET DST) 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 KAA30059 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:18:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ensim.smartydns22.com (ev1s-67-15-74-65.ev1servers.net [67.15.74.65] (may be forged)) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i748IHmL008661 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:18:18 +0200 Received: from www.ivorykite.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ensim.smartydns22.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i748IGSY031555; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 18:18:16 +1000 Received: from 60.246.254.84 (SquirrelMail authenticated user effbiae@ivorykite.com) by www.ivorykite.com with HTTP; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 18:18:16 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <44554.60.246.254.84.1091607496.squirrel@www.ivorykite.com> In-Reply-To: References: <36002.60.246.254.84.1091587147.squirrel@www.ivorykite.com> <36292.60.246.254.84.1091597068.squirrel@www.ivorykite.com> Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 18:18:16 +1000 (EST) Subject: [Caml-list] Re: c is 4 times faster than ocaml? From: "Jack Andrews" To: "John Prevost" Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Reply-To: effbiae@ivorykite.com User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41109BC9.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; prevost:01 dialect:01 prolog:01 amortize:01 preferable:01 api:01 interoperate:01 compiler:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 caml:01 apl:01 mmm:02 thread:02 o'caml:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk 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