From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <murthy.chet@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 099507EE8A
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:05:34 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  murthy.chet@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.160.51;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="murthy.chet@gmail.com";
  x-sender="murthy.chet@gmail.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of
  murthy.chet@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.51 as permitted
  sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.160.51;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="murthy.chet@gmail.com";
  x-sender="murthy.chet@gmail.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@mail-pb0-f51.google.com) identity=helo;
  client-ip=209.85.160.51;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="murthy.chet@gmail.com";
  x-sender="postmaster@mail-pb0-f51.google.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqgEACtXR1HRVaAzimdsb2JhbABDh1qCcrpXgVYWDgEBAQoJDQcSBiSCJQEFOgYBGx4DDAYFIRUQDwETEQEFARyIGgEDD6QKjDKCe4Q5ChknDVmIfAEFDI8QFoMqA4h1nQk/hE0
X-IPAS-Result: AqgEACtXR1HRVaAzimdsb2JhbABDh1qCcrpXgVYWDgEBAQoJDQcSBiSCJQEFOgYBGx4DDAYFIRUQDwETEQEFARyIGgEDD6QKjDKCe4Q5ChknDVmIfAEFDI8QFoMqA4h1nQk/hE0
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,865,1355094000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="8175234"
Received: from mail-pb0-f51.google.com ([209.85.160.51])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 18 Mar 2013 19:05:30 +0100
Received: by mail-pb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id un15so6568796pbc.24
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=x-received:from:to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to
         :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type;
        bh=cIT8k/s/5790yFb+VTYB/B/mLfl2G98PHIzQ91/hV+8=;
        b=r7/6AH2muICXsGa1a7ZfJ9zGpHeaUqpjRAqEZ2Su8Ux2Bz1qalyjf7+xbO7GzNX6Qe
         DxASF1Ek1mRAPuivDxF+l8+aQLafaZ3E7iw3fVni+3pjEHlz08fuyQ4bqO3saz0FFFfI
         huuctwUYYWP4Isve3G1ajfTkEMRU6WxDfYH5p18Mr80ZnSd5LCITJ8C2AZf0QbLXzmEU
         r1k+kxjp0QmzNGjWHa3dLzntXr7JpVMwOkfH/jZlnXX+fcn6aOEJBLAz2EEPB9dXuGfG
         +TXg6FOuUy25kpPJrU3Mdt+UPMOTsWfNdY9E2wwOGn01dr7TtDKNzaxwccNg5lF3FJqF
         sufQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.103.98 with SMTP id fv2mr26854719pbb.121.1363629929004;
        Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from groupon.localnet (adsl-76-254-26-250.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net. [76.254.26.250])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i9sm9062284paa.7.2013.03.18.11.05.26
        (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chet Murthy <murthy.chet@gmail.com>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:05:10 -0700
Message-ID: <9813208.KJBpLPkkvX@groupon>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.5 (Linux/3.2.0-38-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.5; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAGmVoG15XvxWb9SEkV_uj3v7SwB4r9W0K9=8UDPVEEGghkDBoQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fa.e3jKyg6bl9+vTkPgypQ4ZRzEoos@ifi.uio.no> <878v5lca2c.fsf@li195-236.members.linode.com> <CAGmVoG15XvxWb9SEkV_uj3v7SwB4r9W0K9=8UDPVEEGghkDBoQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: [Caml-list] Re: Haskell vs OCaml


Geez, I don't want to fan the flames of any sort of war, but .... as
long as this subject came up, I'd really like to find out if anybody
has done decent-sized-system comparisons of ocaml and haskell for
performance and footprint.

I'm a long-time Caml (and before that SML) hacker, and (hopefully)
fully appreciate the FP Nature, so it's not like I'm looking for an
argument about which language is better, etc, etc.

And I'm not looking for microbenchmarks, either.  I'm looking for
-significant- systems that have been implemented in both, and
information about footprint and performance of those systems.

Why am I looking?  Because if you're a bigot about your favorite
language, and -never- look for countervailing facts about the
competition, you might miss out.

Heck, that's how I became an Ocaml bigot lo' these many years.

So .... anybody got anything?
--chet--