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 OAA29536; Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:56:43 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA30109 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:56:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail3.speakeasy.net (mail3.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.203]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6TCudSH023555 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:56:40 +0200 Received: (qmail 27530 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2004 12:56:38 -0000 Received: from shell1.speakeasy.net ([69.17.110.70]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 29 Jul 2004 12:56:38 -0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 05:56:38 -0700 (PDT) From: brogoff To: Daniel Andor cc: Ocaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] looping recursion In-Reply-To: <200407291144.11633.da209@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: References: <200407291013.12467.da209@cam.ac.uk> <20040729095716.GC13419@yquem.inria.fr> <200407291144.11633.da209@cam.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4108F407.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; brogoff:01 brogoff:01 caml-list:01 recursion:01 2004:99 vanilla:01 vanilla:01 extlib:01 speakeasy:01 benchmarking:02 suited:02 stack:02 thread:02 clearer:02 coding:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Daniel Andor wrote: > On Thursday 29 July 2004 10:57 am, Xavier Leroy wrote: > > Because for smaller list the "vanilla way" is more efficient. > > A little benchmarking with short lists shows that for lists that are near or > smaller than my cache size (skaller's point), the stack map performs better; > especially in the byte-code case. > > However, the thread was originally about long lists, and for that it is clear > that algorithms other than the vanilla map are better suited. It's not at all clear to me. Better how? Faster? Less coding effort? Clearer to others maintaining the code? > To me, this just proves that there's no such thing as universal optimisation (yet!). I agree with that. And I agree with Xavier's prioritization of a clean fix to this as a "nice to have but not critical". For now, use ExtLib or roll your own. > One's got to actually think about the problem at hand. Damn. ;) Yes. I'm going back to C and assembly code now, thanks to these arguments :-) -- Brian ------------------- 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