Le Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:33:34 +0200, Török Edwin edwinto...@gmail.com a écrit :
Not sure what the max should be for the minor heap increase, but based
on this benchmark increasing size of minor heap never slows down the
program. Even when size of minor heap exceeds what fits in the cache.
I
idiomatic
OCaml/Java code.
Cheers,
Jon.
-Original Message-
From: caml-list-boun...@yquem.inria.fr [mailto:caml-list-
boun...@yquem.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Erik de Castro Lopo
Sent: 24 November 2010 01:24
To: caml-l...@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Is OCaml fast?
Jon Harrop wrote
Thanassis Tsiodras wrote:
I apologize beforehand if this is not the forum to ask.
I am on the fence about whether to learn OCaml or not, and while reading
an article called Why OCaml
(http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Software/Ocaml/why_ocaml.html), I saw that
OCaml was praised for the speed of
Hi Thanassis,
Le 22 nov. 10 à 14:21, Thanassis Tsiodras a écrit :
I apologize beforehand if this is not the forum to ask.
(...)
Is it just hype, then? Or am I missing something?
may we know, after all this intense discussion, what is your feeling?
Did this debate enlightened your views?
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Vincent Aravantinos
vincent.aravanti...@gmail.com wrote:
may we know, after all this intense discussion, what is your feeling?
Well... (ducks, wears helmet).
Dr Jon Harrop communicated with me directly (two days ago)... and when
I expressed my lack of faith
Le 24 nov. 10 à 16:30, Thanassis Tsiodras a écrit :
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Vincent Aravantinos
vincent.aravanti...@gmail.com wrote:
may we know, after all this intense discussion, what is your feeling?
Well... (ducks, wears helmet).
Dr Jon Harrop communicated with me directly
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 05:55:02AM -0800, Dario Teixeira wrote:
Hi,
I am on the fence about whether to learn OCaml or not, and while
reading an article called Why OCaml
(http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Software/Ocaml/why_ocaml.html),
I saw that OCaml was praised for the speed of the
I apologize beforehand if this is not the forum to ask.
I am on the fence about whether to learn OCaml or not, and while
reading an article called Why OCaml
(http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Software/Ocaml/why_ocaml.html), I saw
that OCaml was praised for the speed of the executables it generates -
If you want speed then you should learn assembly or choose C as a second
choice.
It depends on the kind of apps you'd like to write. Even though O'Caml is
fast, it's not the first criteria I have in mind which would be security :
no segfault, no need to handle horrible stuff like in C, ...
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Gregory Bellier
gregory.bell...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want speed then you should learn assembly or choose C as a second
choice.
It depends on the kind of apps you'd like to write. Even though O'Caml is
fast, it's not the first criteria I have in mind which
Gregory Bellier wrote:
If you want speed then you should learn assembly or choose C as a second
choice.
Certainly not assembly. Modern microprocessors just see assembly as a
kind-of high level language which they interpret in a funny way, doing
all sorts of re-schedulings, register
Am Montag, den 22.11.2010, 15:21 +0200 schrieb Thanassis Tsiodras:
I apologize beforehand if this is not the forum to ask.
I am on the fence about whether to learn OCaml or not, and while
reading an article called Why OCaml
(http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Software/Ocaml/why_ocaml.html), I saw
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.dewrote:
I think the shootout is not a good data source. There are definitely
some very poor Ocaml results there, so I'd guess the shootout got
recently more attention by enthusiasts of other languages, and the
current Ocaml
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:36:30 +0100
bluestorm bluestorm.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Gerd Stolpmann
i...@gerd-stolpmann.dewrote:
I think the shootout is not a good data source. There are definitely
some very poor Ocaml results there, so I'd guess the shootout got
Am Montag, den 22.11.2010, 15:36 +0100 schrieb bluestorm:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Gerd Stolpmann
i...@gerd-stolpmann.de wrote:
I think the shootout is not a good data source. There are
definitely
some very poor Ocaml results there, so I'd guess the shootout
Török Edwin edwinto...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:36:30 +0100
bluestorm bluestorm.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Gerd Stolpmann
i...@gerd-stolpmann.dewrote:
I think the shootout is not a good data source. There are definitely
some very poor Ocaml
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de wrote:
So maybe a good opportunity to post better Ocaml solutions there?
I spent some time improving OCaml solutions, and most of the time, my
solutions were refused: the organizers don't let you unroll loops, fix
GC
2010/11/22 Török Edwin edwinto...@gmail.com:
Isn't it possible for the GC to realise its doing too many collections
and increase the minor heap size on its own?
Indeed, it could notice that a lot of data is being moved to the major
heap, and double its size in consequence, until a maximum limit
Zitat von Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de:
[...]
(I remember Ocaml was #1
at the shootout a few years ago, faster than C.) So maybe a good
opportunity to post better Ocaml solutions there?
[...]
Yes I also remember that.
I hope that the new OCaml compilers did not
make OCaml
I can confirm that old code-snippets were removed (and that both faster
solutions and environment variable tweaks were rejected).
On Nov 22, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Oliver Bandel wrote:
Zitat von Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de:
[...]
(I remember Ocaml was #1
at the shootout a few years
answer to the original poster:
ocaml is surprisingly fast for such a high level language, i like this
insight/comparison:
http://youinfinitesnake.blogspot.com/2010/09/programming-language-wars-movie.html
(even if the benchmarks can be improved reading others posts of this
thread)
...hmhhh..
...looks like they are biased...
not that we are not ;)
...but... as the GC-stuff is available FROM WITHING the language,
in the standard-lib, this is nothing added on later.
And I think it should also be allowed to be used.
To reject environment variables, I can see as
Note: I'm not saying that they are biased. It's quite possible they did the
same thing for other languages, too, I didn't take the time to check.
On Nov 22, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Oliver Bandel wrote:
...hmhhh..
...looks like they are biased...
not that we are not ;)
Hi,
Zitat von Thanassis Tsiodras ttsiod...@gmail.com:
I apologize beforehand if this is not the forum to ask.
I am on the fence about whether to learn OCaml or not, and while
reading an article called Why OCaml
(http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Software/Ocaml/why_ocaml.html), I saw
that OCaml
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:46:49 +0100
Fabrice Le Fessant fabr...@lefessant.net wrote:
2010/11/22 Török Edwin edwinto...@gmail.com:
Isn't it possible for the GC to realise its doing too many
collections and increase the minor heap size on its own?
Indeed, it could notice that a lot of data is
25 matches
Mail list logo
