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 3F44ABBAF for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:59:30 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtUJAHEk7kxQW+UMgWdsb2JhbACVB40GgQEVAQEWIiK/R4VHBIRcjW0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,255,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="68077513" Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 25 Nov 2010 17:59:29 +0100 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PLfAL-0005YZ-9X for caml-list@inria.fr; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:59:25 +0100 Received: from 69-196-160-116.dsl.teksavvy.com ([69.196.160.116]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:59:25 +0100 Received: from monnier by 69-196-160-116.dsl.teksavvy.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:59:25 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: caml-list@inria.fr From: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: Is OCaml fast? Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:59:14 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1290434674.16005.354.camel@thinkpad> <20101122180203.2126497sau3zukgb@webmail.in-berlin.de> <20101123232742.GC28768@siouxsie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 69-196-160-116.dsl.teksavvy.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:zCBm2so7gL6FR8sVjSDqO4/YrEQ= X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml's:01 garbage:01 garbage:01 shootout:02 shootout:02 misleading:03 languages:03 languages:03 programming:03 benchmark:04 benchmark:04 submissions:04 processors:04 problem:05 > Richard's objection, which you dismissed out of hand, was that your > no-GC-tuning rule is silly in the light of actual uses of garbage > collected programming languages on modern processors. It makes your > results unrealistic, and an unrealistic benchmark is misleading, or at > best merely useless. To the extent that this rule is the same for all languages and that most languages on the shootout are also garbage collected, I think OCaml's problem with this benchmark do point at a weakness of the current GC code. Of course, the shootout could be improved. E.g. maybe it could allow extra submissions that break the rules, along with a description of which rules were broken and how. Then there could be a "score according to the rules", then a "score when all gloves are off", together with some kind of "measure" of what was needed to go from one to the other. This way people could maybe get a better feel for the languages's performance and how (and how much) that performance can be affected. Doesn't seem like an easy undertaking, tho. Stefan