From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <michael.walter@gmail.com>
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1269BC8B
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:34:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.204])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1D2YI7m016776
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:34:18 +0100
Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id g11so879417rne
        for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:34:17 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
        b=U66FZiYLz0gx5i21OYpiNl4X4QnZp6l+3TJ1USxwrC9Hg2Vi8YWebeiWfadFImDSGRpDUMRgoU2wxOVwFwWJ0ErvjOrrm+Pck85p0RmUEnBIx/mONw62HvGjNnGINk0HDPLBvRIW4usjXVQwszQrx73czQyjGMB0B7g2oxBniLA=
Received: by 10.38.67.76 with SMTP id p76mr48676rna;
        Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:34:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.38.86.80 with HTTP; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:34:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <877e9a1705021218345ada1558@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:34:17 -0500
From: Michael Walter <michael.walter@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Michael Walter <michael.walter@gmail.com>
To: Brian Hurt <bhurt@spnz.org>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The boon of static type checking
Cc: skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>, Jon <jdh30@cam.ac.uk>,
	caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0502122018420.5563-100000@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <877e9a17050212145737cc30d6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.44.0502122018420.5563-100000@localhost.localdomain>
X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 420EBCAA.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 wrote:01 inlining:01 compilers:01 compiler:01 cheers:01 ...:98 functions:01 inline:01 checking:01 brian:03 tradeoff:03 tradeoff:03 static:03 problem:05 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=disabled 
	version=3.0.2
X-Spam-Level: 

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:27:56 -0600 (CST), Brian Hurt <bhurt@spnz.org> wrote:
> You've had better experiences that I have, obviously.  I've met one too
> many programmers who said, in effect, "inlining a function makes it go
> faster, so I try to inline lots of my functions!"
Ouch :-)

> > What I'm saying is that choosing a language is a tradeoff, and the
> > kind of tradeoff C++ gives you can be a very good one (if not the
> > best) for particular problem domains. You can see evidence for such a
> > domain in the time spent on improving already very good compilers :-)
> Actually, most of the time was spent improving the C compiler.  [...]
That's true, my statement should have read "C (or C++)".

Cheers,
Michael