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 mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B4BBBAF for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:50:43 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmAGAKJE7ExQW+UMgWdsb2JhbACBVZMajgQWARYiIqxEhx6JDIVMBIpf X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,246,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="89224561" Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2010 07:50:42 +0100 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PL9Bd-00042c-0t for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:50:37 +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 ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:50:36 +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 ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:50:36 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: caml-list@inria.fr From: Isaac Gouy Subject: Re: Is OCaml fast? Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 06:50:15 +0000 (UTC) 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; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Ubuntu/10.10 (maverick) Firefox/3.6.12) X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 christophe:01 troestler:01 ocaml:01 garbage:01 writes:01 misleading:03 constructive:03 constructive:03 languages:03 programming:03 library:03 benchmark:04 benchmark:04 solid:95 Jeff Meister gmail.com> writes: > We know what your rules are for > binary-trees; repeating them does not help. When Christophe TROESTLER wrongly states - "OCaml is not authorized to make use of its very own library!" - he shows that those rules are not known. > 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. When said Richard opines about programs he apparently hasn't bothered to read, I take that as a sign his opinions might not be based on anything solid. > It makes your results unrealistic, and an > unrealistic benchmark is misleading, or at best merely useless. You should think that benchmarks (not just these) are unrealistic - your application is the ultimate benchmark. Useless? Wouldn't that depend on the objectives? The post you replied to linked-to a 3 line statement of objectives - did you read it? > You are free to tersely reject our constructive criticism Do you really think saying something is "ludicrous" or "silly" is constructive criticism? :-)