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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB691BBAF for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 03:15:05 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aj8FADay6kxQW+UMgWdsb2JhbACBVIF2kRmOBxUBARYiIogrpA48h2WJDIEigzZzBIpe X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,239,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="80731113" Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 23 Nov 2010 03:15:05 +0100 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKiPQ-0000O2-CK for caml-list@inria.fr; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 03:15:04 +0100 Received: from c-24-4-7-10.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([24.4.7.10]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 03:15:04 +0100 Received: from igouy2 by c-24-4-7-10.hsd1.ca.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 03:15:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: caml-list@inria.fr From: Isaac Gouy Subject: Re: Is OCaml fast? Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 02:03:48 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1290434674.16005.354.camel@thinkpad> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 24.4.7.10 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Ubuntu/10.10 (maverick) Firefox/3.6.12) X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 heap:01 heap:01 writes:01 measurements:01 shootout:02 shootout:02 W4:96 parameters:03 parameters:03 debian:04 debian:04 size:95 benchmarks:07 bluestorm gmail.com> writes: -snip- > With appropriate GC parameters, the very same OCaml program is exactly as fast as C. > > > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/performance.php?test=binarytrees > > « Note: these programs are being measured with the default initial heap size - the measurements may be very different with a larger initial heap size or GC tuning. » > > > C version : 12.11 secs > OCaml version : 47.22 secs > OCaml version with GC parameters tuned ("interesting alternative" section) : 12.67 secs And of course you know because that GC tuned OCaml program is shown on the benchmarks game website ;-) http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/program.php?test=binarytrees&lang=ocaml&id=1