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 concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731F8BB81 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 07:26:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de (mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de [192.54.42.129]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j995QgNE002567 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 07:26:43 +0200 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E7B20005; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 07:26:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 10666-02-5; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 07:26:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mailhost.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (kaiser.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de [141.84.136.1]) by mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F3D920004; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 07:26:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de [141.84.136.54]) by mailhost.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F6026F4D; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 07:26:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: by eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix, from userid 3092) id CD07E12F75; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 07:26:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28CB12F17; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 07:26:41 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 07:26:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Fischbacher To: Jon Harrop Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ray tracer language comparison In-Reply-To: <200510040018.24932.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Message-ID: References: <200510040018.24932.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-BOFH: Daemons did it MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at physik.uni-muenchen.de X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4348AA12.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 run-time:01 ocamlopt:01 ocamlopt:01 verbose:01 ocaml:01 2005,:98 cip:98 cip:98 lambda:01 lambda:01 wrote:01 compile:01 slower:01 slower:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_FAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Jon Harrop wrote: > > I've updated my language comparison with four implementations in Scheme and > one in Lisp: > > http://www.ffconsultancy.com/free/ray_tracer/languages.html > > In short, Stalin's run-time performance is excellent (36% faster than > ocamlopt) but its compile times are poor (2,000x slower than ocamlopt!) and > SBCL-compiled Lisp is 6x slower than ocamlopt. Both Scheme and Lisp are >2x > as verbose as OCaml. As you may have seen from my initial reply to that posting, I originally was quite sceptical. However, I had a somewhat lengthy PM conversation with Dr. Jon Harrop where he kindly and patiently explained to me his methodology and findings, and eventually, this inspired me to contribute another benchmark (which I did of my own) to this comparison. As this issue created a lot of traffic on comp.lang.functional, comp.lang.scheme, comp.lang.java.programmer, and some other newsgroups, this could even be of interest to a broader audience. It's here: http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf/raytracer/ -- regards, tf@cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (o_ Thomas Fischbacher - http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf //\ (lambda (n) ((lambda (p q r) (p p q r)) (lambda (g x y) V_/_ (if (= x 0) y (g g (- x 1) (* x y)))) n 1)) (Debian GNU)