From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <goswin-v-b@web.de>
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 BC8D8BC57
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 14 May 2010 17:17:46 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqMCAIcG7UvZSMDqh2dsb2JhbACdeBUBAQEVCBoDH70dhRAE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,229,1272837600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="59362002"
Received: from fmmailgate03.web.de ([217.72.192.234])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 14 May 2010 17:17:46 +0200
Received:  from smtp05.web.de  ( [172.20.4.166])
	by fmmailgate03.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F347515045073
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 14 May 2010 17:17:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [78.43.204.177] (helo=frosties.localdomain)
	by smtp05.web.de with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(WEB.DE 4.110 #4)
	id 1OCwe1-0004OY-00
	for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Fri, 14 May 2010 17:17:45 +0200
Received: from mrvn by frosties.localdomain with local (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <goswin-v-b@web.de>)
	id 1OCwe6-0003Cx-E1
	for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Fri, 14 May 2010 17:17:50 +0200
From: Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>
To: <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] about OcamIL
References: <w2t320e992a1005051158pcdb30e5w48409aa8b6e464e4@mail.gmail.com>
	<951508.20587.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<g2j90823c941005060343t88c91d06k731ccd01ec225c07@mail.gmail.com>
	<201005061233.07551.peng.zang@gmail.com>
	<07b101caf08b$3e5022c0$baf06840$@com>
	<AANLkTik7gzvUrLntCLbL7gQow4RCzkXDPwCNiCHIE6Or@mail.gmail.com>
	<088201caf1ce$b5060cb0$1f122610$@com>
	<20100512151137.26894ywcpv71ixvk@imp.ovh.net>
	<012601caf351$e9a362e0$bcea28a0$@com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 17:17:50 +0200
In-Reply-To: <012601caf351$e9a362e0$bcea28a0$@com> (Jon Harrop's message of
	"Fri, 14 May 2010 11:40:45 +0100")
Message-ID: <87fx1uh5r5.fsf@frosties.localdomain>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) XEmacs/21.4.22 (linux, no MULE)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: goswin-v-b@web.de
X-Sender: goswin-v-b@web.de
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18fnySaxon57YbGuE3CZw8NlQozkdRSZ5vpDft8
	2kvaydzMD4GC+JEKXfLzD6KhKAW9Rw+Muopf6cONmDqkFYwQ/M
	uRFDJQI2Q=
X-Spam: no; 0.00; bigloo:01 cheers:01 mfg:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 writes:01 argument:02 argument:02 slower:02 languages:03 benchmark:04 benchmark:04 margin:94 xavier:06 benchmarks:07 

Jon Harrop <jonathandeanharrop@googlemail.com> writes:

> Xavier Clerc wrote:
>> Limiting myself to the JVM...
>> Moreover, at least Scala and Bigloo deliver excellent performances.
>
> 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".
>
> Cheers,
> Jon.

You can pretty much write a benchmark for any 2 languages that
specifically targets the weekness of one and the strength of the other
showing that one is better than the other by a wide margin. You can
usualy reverse the argument with a different benchmark.

So your argument as such says nothing about JVM, just something about
your benchmarks.

MfG
       Goswin