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, ...
2010/1
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Gregory Bellier
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 would be security :
> no
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 renamings,
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 executables it
> generates - and was referred to, speed-wise, as "seco
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),
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Gerd Stolpmann 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 got
> recently more attention by enthusiasts of other languages, and the
> current Ocaml programs there are
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:36:30 +0100
bluestorm wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Gerd Stolpmann
> 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 got
> > recently more attention by enthusias
Am Montag, den 22.11.2010, 15:36 +0100 schrieb bluestorm:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Gerd Stolpmann
> 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
> got
>
Török Edwin writes:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:36:30 +0100
> bluestorm wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Gerd Stolpmann
>> 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 got
>> > r
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Gerd Stolpmann 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 parameters, etc. One strength
2010/11/22 Török Edwin :
> 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 is
reached.
The
Zitat von "Gerd Stolpmann" :
[...]
(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 lessperformance by enhancing othe
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 remember Ocaml was #1
>> at the shootout a few years ago, faster than C
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 acc
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" :
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 th
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:46:49 +0100
Fabrice Le Fessant wrote:
> 2010/11/22 Török Edwin :
> > 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, a
It's always funny to look at benchmarks made by amateurs. We get it all the
time in parallel computing, when some sharp programmer decides to implement
a parallel algorithm in Java. :) I keep asking myself questions like do you
also program ciphers in Flash? Graph algorithms in PHP?
In my experien
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 06:23:38PM +0100, Oliver Bandel wrote:
> ...looks like they are biased...
> not that we are not ;)
> To reject environment variables, I can see as acceptable in this case,
> but rejecting the GC-stuff does not make sense, because, as just mentioned,
> it is avalable
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 o
Oliver wrote:
> AFAIK in the past, functional langauges were not adapted, because they
> were
> very unperformant - at least this is one reason.
> Another reason might be, that the available functional languages in the
> past
> were overloaded with parenthess ;)
That was also true of early ML impl
Jon Harrop wrote:
> Many of the things that can make OCaml and Java slow were inherited
> from Lisp. They are, in effect, designs that still bear the burden
> of dynamic typing despite being statically typed.
I'm curious, what in your opinion are those things?
Erik
--
--
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 s
I was in a similar position than yours two years ago, looking for a
higher level language than C to gain some expressive power but without
willing to sacrifice C's speed. I consulted a lot of benchmarks from
the shootout, and also many webpages similar to the one you refer to,
some praising a langu
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?
Di
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Vincent Aravantinos
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 after reading his "Rise and fall
Hi,
Zitat von "Thanassis Tsiodras" :
[...]
Over the last couple of days, I've played a lot with ocaml (to be
exact, Linux/ocamlopt, since my interest in the speed of what I make
remains dominant)
[...]
OK, then I asume, you will be one of the programmers who
pick out the right datastructures
Le 24 nov. 10 à 16:30, Thanassis Tsiodras a écrit :
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Vincent Aravantinos
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 expr
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 fas
Le Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:33:34 +0200, Török Edwin 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 guess there is anot
31 matches
Mail list logo
