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 mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AD75BBAF for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:23:35 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmAGACNM7ExQW+UMgWdsb2JhbACBVZMbjgQWARYiIqxHhyuJDIVMBIpf X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,247,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="80088381" Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2010 08:23:34 +0100 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PL9hV-0006H2-Bd for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:23:33 +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 08:23:33 +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 08:23:33 +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 07:23:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1290434674.16005.354.camel@thinkpad> <20101122180203.2126497sau3zukgb@webmail.in-berlin.de> <20101123232742.GC28768@siouxsie> <0704C450-C5AD-4D02-8C7B-9659E4B918B5@univ-orleans.fr> 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 univ-orleans:01 ocaml:01 maintainers:01 maintainers:01 writes:01 shootout:02 wrt:10 maybe:10 david:14 david:14 solution:14 then:17 would:18 among:21 David Rajchenbach-Teller univ-orleans.fr> writes: > Maybe the solution is to get one of our numbers among the maintainers of the shootout. This would guarantee, if not objectivity, then at least informed choices wrt OCaml. Presumably you'd need all of the maintainers to be OCaml certified to guarantee "objectivity" :-)