From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4ACBBAF for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:39:57 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkYBADgr6kzRVdg0kGdsb2JhbACiVQgVAQEBAQkJDAcRAx+jHot7hRiJBwEBAwWFRgSKXokt X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,237,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="67840290" Received: from mail-qw0-f52.google.com ([209.85.216.52]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 22 Nov 2010 17:39:57 +0100 Received: by qwb8 with SMTP id 8so227361qwb.39 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:39:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rZS07uiYXYUQVG/ahCcd7K3cpCkclogWUsroJOjM6yQ=; b=aj/bBz11Cq22/1ZtNMalVBmUNtUEQGnx5N0DVzZTHHGXzg7o2WlE8yV4jS1r00WpLQ Ks+0A36xV+1r5EhnXhgtI6JjQWp6SqMxDNc1rjYbhiQ4pP6F8YLS37Zl/xreqmbHM2iN 7j9ASEmkOnd+U538dUkOjD3He2rUQ8HZFs02U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=RZtrI6pcjd3FYoNuqIv0CmWer+WpWcpDw4zKf7N8suWs+Fsym7OMsnX189NYSTO33f lXvQ+G0IzkIxCGFcq+VJEU81fGJbzj6Yht5lkeQ5IZ7Pxva1Vsp58xIdKTGK2gAbPkRP OsF0xW2+69hnyaYN3hCkmSQisWTG/LLlk5Yl4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.238.197 with SMTP id kt5mr5292727qcb.25.1290443996191; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:39:56 -0800 (PST) Sender: fabrissimo@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.30.138 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:39:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1110536178.728445.1290434684177.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr> References: <1110536178.728445.1290434684177.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:39:56 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: H3iLCmOEiO47680GltVsItC0kuk Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Is OCaml fast? From: Fabrice Le Fessant To: Gerd Stolpmann Cc: Thanassis Tsiodras , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 gerd:01 stolpmann:01 ocaml:01 haskell:01 compiler:01 sockets:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 loops:02 slower:02 consistent:02 languages:03 parameters:03 library:03 On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Gerd Stolpmann wrote: > So maybe a good opportunity to post better Ocaml solutions there? I spent some time improving OCaml solutions, and most of the time, my solutions were refused: the organizers don't let you unroll loops, fix GC parameters, etc. One strength of OCaml is that it runs fairly fast immediatly, but you can make it run even faster with some tuning, something that you cannot do with many other languages. Such tuning is not allowed there, so, it is not a good place for OCaml hackers. If the organizers had been consistent, they would have forbidden Haskell programmers from adding strictness in their programs, but then, there programs would have been 2x slower than OCaml programs. Well, actually, things might improve in the future, if we manage to improve the performance of the compiler itself, and have more "official" libraries. For example, most parallel solutions in OCaml currently use fork() and sockets for communication. Using an official shared-memory library, we could directly improve the performances of many OCaml solutions. --Fabrice