From: Yoann Padioleau <padiolea@irisa.fr>
To: Oliver Bandel <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml troll on Slashdot
Date: 16 Mar 2005 14:33:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3mzt33ecp.fsf@ryxa.irisa.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050316025532.GA593@first.in-berlin.de>
Oliver Bandel <oliver@first.in-berlin.de> writes:
> If he only would be cynic about "well I tried it, but it has proven
> it's a crap language... but I give you (experienced OCaml programmers)
> the chance to show me that it isn't bad (and *I* have o learn the language)"
> then this woul be ok.
I agree.
> Maybe I'm wrong here and he's a good guy. But IMHO it seems he's looking
> for proved Ocaml-failure (and not for "well, I tried it, it seems OCaml sucks,
> but please tell me it does not!", which I could accept).
I think his intention were good (but he is surely a bad guy too).
> Do you think *I'm the bad guy*?!
no :) of course not :)
> > I am not sure that making the function tail-recursive would have been the big
> > hit in this example.
>
> But as long as nobody tried it / analzed it, your assumption is
> only an assumption, as my assumption is only an assumotion too!
Well at least my assumption about "use Map instead of assoc list is a big hit"
has been proven. The running time from the program go from "more than 16 minutes" to just
50 seconds (this is what I call a big hit).
It would be interesting to make his function tail-rec (and keeping the assoc list)
and see if it is a big hit but I am too lazy for this and I hate
those tail-rec transformation and I think it would
not be a big hit cos using Map and Array is the big hit.
It's your turn oliver bandel to do the job :)
> > I often transform my functions to make them tail-recursive because of stack overflow pb, not
> > that much because of speed pbs
> > (and many functions in the standard library are not tail-recursive, such as map)
>
>
> Well, maybe I have overestimated the tailrec-point,
> but as long as there is not a proven counter-example,
> the opposite of what I stated seems to be only an assumption too.
True.
>
> !!! To see different results it would be nice to have different implementations
> !!! to compare them all!
I agree.
> Would be interesting to have different variations of the
> code, using different ways of coding some special tasks
> in different ways.... and maybe oe implementation,
> that uses *all* suggestions.
>
> To do it in the language shootout, as on Jon stated it, seems
> to be a veryg good idea.
I agree.
I must confess that I have very few intuition about what is more important
in optimization, but perhaps because it depends on the program.
Sometimes X is a better optimization than Y on this program Z.
Sometimes Y is a better optimization than X on this program Z2.
> > This tail-recursion stuff is one of the thing I hate the most with fp because it forces
> > you to change your code to adapt to the machine whereas it should be the
> > inverse.
>
> But only because you hate it does not mean that changing the code will not result
> in better performance.
true :)
--
Yoann Padioleau, INSA de Rennes, France www.irisa.fr/prive/padiolea/
Opinions expressed here are only mine. Je n'écris qu'à titre personnel.
**____ Get Free. Be Smart. Simply use Linux and Free Software. ____**
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-03-16 13:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 71+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-03-15 1:29 Karl Zilles
2005-03-15 8:32 ` [Caml-list] " Oliver Bandel
2005-03-15 8:45 ` Michael Vanier
2005-03-15 8:59 ` Jon Harrop
2005-03-15 20:17 ` Yoann Padioleau
2005-03-15 20:36 ` Jon Harrop
2005-03-15 21:03 ` padiolea
2005-03-15 21:40 ` William D.Neumann
2005-03-15 22:12 ` Yoann Padioleau
2005-03-15 23:07 ` William D.Neumann
2005-03-15 23:39 ` Jon Harrop
2005-03-15 23:54 ` Thomas Fischbacher
2005-03-16 0:03 ` Christopher Dutchyn
2005-03-16 0:18 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-03-16 1:05 ` Yoann Padioleau
2005-03-16 2:55 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-03-16 11:23 ` Thomas Fischbacher
2005-03-16 23:41 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-03-16 13:33 ` Yoann Padioleau [this message]
2005-03-16 23:59 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-03-16 3:01 ` Jon Harrop
2005-03-16 13:10 ` Yoann Padioleau
2005-03-16 13:41 ` Jacques Garrigue
2005-03-16 14:14 ` Yoann Padioleau
2005-03-17 0:27 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-03-16 17:43 ` brogoff
2005-03-16 19:51 ` Jon Harrop
2005-03-17 3:35 ` brogoff
2005-03-17 3:48 ` Yaron Minsky
2005-03-17 10:16 ` Jon Harrop
2005-03-17 10:47 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-03-17 18:06 ` brogoff
2005-03-17 19:15 ` Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
2005-03-18 17:46 ` brogoff
2005-03-18 18:44 ` Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
2005-03-17 21:31 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-03-17 9:45 ` Christian Szegedy
2005-03-17 10:31 ` Jon Harrop
2005-03-17 11:11 ` Ville-Pertti Keinonen
2005-03-17 11:31 ` tail-recursion vs. no tail-recursion in list functions sebastian.egner
2005-03-17 21:41 ` [Caml-list] " Oliver Bandel
2005-03-18 0:04 ` David Brown
2005-03-18 0:06 ` Karl Zilles
2005-03-18 1:13 ` Jacques Garrigue
2005-03-17 0:21 ` [Caml-list] OCaml troll on Slashdot Oliver Bandel
2005-03-17 1:05 ` Jacques Garrigue
2005-03-17 17:32 ` Jason Hickey
2005-03-17 19:06 ` Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
2005-03-17 0:14 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-03-16 1:38 ` Jacques Garrigue
2005-03-31 11:42 ` Paul Argentoff
2005-03-31 11:41 ` Paul Argentoff
2005-03-15 20:06 ` Yoann Padioleau
2005-03-15 9:25 ` Richard Jones
2005-03-15 10:08 ` YANG Shouxun
2005-03-15 20:02 ` Yoann Padioleau
2005-03-15 22:33 ` Richard Jones
2005-03-16 1:33 ` YANG Shouxun
2005-03-15 10:34 ` padiolea
2005-03-15 10:52 ` Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons
2005-03-15 14:12 ` Eijiro Sumii
2005-03-15 15:25 ` Christophe TROESTLER
2005-03-15 18:05 ` Thomas Fischbacher
2005-03-15 18:26 ` Kip Macy
2005-03-16 0:32 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-03-16 11:26 ` David Fox
2005-03-15 18:55 ` Christopher A. Watford
2005-03-15 19:56 ` Jon Harrop
2005-03-16 0:35 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-03-16 0:34 ` Oliver Bandel
2005-03-18 6:04 Harrison, John R
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m3mzt33ecp.fsf@ryxa.irisa.fr \
--to=padiolea@irisa.fr \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=oliver@first.in-berlin.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).