From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA17469; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:13:01 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA17236 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:13:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mg.ihep.su (mg.ihep.su [194.190.161.38]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g3PGCvr15084; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:12:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by mg.ihep.su (Postfix, from userid 65436) id F3AF1B52C3; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:12:55 +0400 (MSD) Received: from ontil.ihep.su (ontil.ihep.su [194.190.161.63]) by mg.ihep.su (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3642BB52C0; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:12:51 +0400 (MSD) Received: from localhost (vsl@localhost) by ontil.ihep.su (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3PGHJJ11677; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:17:24 +0400 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:17:19 +0400 (MSD) From: Vitaly Lugovsky To: Xavier Leroy Cc: Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml efficiency In-Reply-To: <20020424140512.A17777@pauillac.inria.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Xavier Leroy wrote: > In both cases, OCaml will not only give you lower performance than > say C, Fortran or assembly, but the OCaml code will not be > cleaner nor easier to write than the C or Fortran code. Btw., many of the numerical algorithms can be very well explained in Caml when Fortran code is not readable at all. So, it's good for number crunching even when its efficiency is much more poor then Fortran or C. ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners