From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA14703; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:29:50 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA14731 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:29:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from www.invert.com (invert.com [209.164.21.15]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f5BFTmv18858 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:29:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from miles@localhost) by www.invert.com (8.10.1/8.10.1AA) id f5BFTlx59365 for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:29:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from miles) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:29:47 -0700 From: Miles Egan To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: [Caml-list] the importance of strictness Message-ID: <20010611082947.B59230@caddr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk While perusing the results of the last several ICFP contests, I've been struck by the fact that teams using Haskell often manage to write correct programs, they are almost always slower than the Ocaml entries. My impression is that the Ocaml advantage is at least partially due to a more efficient compiler. Is this because more effort has been devoted to optimizing the Ocaml compiler or is it because a strict language is simpler to implement and leaves more room for optimization? -- miles ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr