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=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 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 47CD1BBAF for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:39:23 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,413,1233529200"; d="scan'208";a="26225690" Received: from estephe.inria.fr ([128.93.11.95]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2009 16:39:22 +0100 Message-ID: <49C8FEAA.6090302@inria.fr> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:39:22 +0100 From: Xavier Leroy User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080929) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Harrop Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Google summer of Code proposal References: <200903211439.47107.cdome@bk.ru> <49C79A54.5020406@inria.fr> <200903231938.04825.jon@ffconsultancy.com> In-Reply-To: <200903231938.04825.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml's:01 ocaml:01 compiler:01 coq:01 compiler:01 inlining:01 sml:01 symbolic:01 symbolic:01 caml-list:01 data:02 caml:02 caml:02 computing:05 computing:05 >> 2- OCaml's strategy is close to optimal for symbolic computing. > > Is MLton not several times faster than OCaml for symbolic computing? No, only in your dreams. If there was a Caml or SML compiler that was twice as fast as Caml on codes like Coq or Isabelle/HOL, everyone (me included) would have switched to that compiler a long time ago. MLton can probably outperform Caml on some symbolic codes, but not by a large factor and not because of data representation strategies (but rather because of more aggressive inlining and the like). - Xavier Leroy