On 6/1/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Alain Frisch</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:Alain.Frisch@inria.fr">Alain.Frisch@inria.fr</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
&nbsp;MLton&#39;s strength is that<br>you don&#39;t have to pay the price for abstraction, i.e. cleaning up your<br>program (by factorizing it or making it more modular) does not degrade<br>performance. I have no experience with MLton, but I don&#39;t believe that
<br>performances are much more difficult to predict than with OCaml (Stephen?).</blockquote><div><br>I could not agree with this sentiment more.&nbsp; Stephen actually now works at Jane Street, and since his arrival he&#39;s taught us a&nbsp; number of techniques for using modules and functors to organize and factor code more effectively.&nbsp; Some of these techniques were obviously born in the context of Mlton, where they have no performance penalty.&nbsp; It&#39;s downright annoying to have to avoid these techniques in performance-sensitive code in OCaml.&nbsp; In other words, factoring out with functors and modules is good style, but OCaml penalizes you for it.
<br><br>y<br></div><br></div><br>