I think OCaml's problem with this benchmark do point at a weakness
of the current GC code.
What makes you think that ?
I don't really understand the question: it was just stating the obvious.
OCaml's GC (including its default settings) is generally very good, but
like all GCs it has its
type _ t =
| IntLit : int - int t
| BoolLit : bool - bool t
| Pair : 'a t * 'b t - ('a * 'b) t
| App : ('a - 'b) t * 'a t - 'b t
| Abs : ('a - 'b) - ('a - 'b) t
There's something Haskellish about this syntax, in the sense that type
constructors are portrayed as being like
4) You would like to generate OCaml program fragments instead of Scheme.
Your idea is that the type system, imposing more constraints on the legal
program, will reduce the search space and accelerate your generator.
Absolutely. For simpler function induction problems, I assume this
could
It sure does, tho not with fun but only with var definitions.
^^^
val
Stefan blush!
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
Wouldn't one of way of detecting a recursive function would be to see
if the indeed the function calls itself?
That's what Haskell does, yes.
Let's make things clear here: the rec *really* is a feature;
Nobody said otherwise. Eliminating the rec is also a feature.
Those two features are
Till Varoquaux had written:
Let's make things clear here: the rec *really* is a feature;
Nobody said otherwise. Eliminating the rec is also a feature.
Those two features are mostly incompatible, and many reasonable people
disagree on which one of the two is more important.
Stefan who
...why is that program not written with INRIA's Ocaml?
Probably for the same reason than all Princeton university
programs are not written in SML/NJ (so I guess) ?
They're not?
Stefan
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
As far as I know, one is using ocamlopt to improve performance.
I can't think of any case where one would need native code running on
pre-SS2 machines which are so outdated performance-wise.
You mean we should make slow machines even slower?
Stefan
