From: "climb" <onlyclimb@163.com>
To: Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@inria.fr>
Cc: "caml-list@inria.fr" <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: Re: Coyote Gulch test in Caml (was Re: [Caml-list] speed )
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 10:53:38 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030105025344.68FF41C67CBB4@sm205.163.com> (raw)
So i think the whole thing is very interesting.
at http://caml.inria.fr/ it says
04/2001. Objective Caml ranks 2nd on speed (between C and C++) on Doug Bagley's computer language shootout.
Now on the shoot out
take for example
Random numbers generated
Test Source 1000 300000 600000 900000
ocaml 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18
java 0.61 0.75 0.91 1.01
then for ocaml it is about 0.06 per 300000
for java it is about 0.13 per 300000 0.13 = (( 0.91-0.75) + ( 1.01-0.91))/2
It is aproximately of factor 2. (by calulating like this, we can remove the effect of java's slow starup)
And for many test in the snap shot, the factor is approximately of factor 2 .many are quite more than 2
Exceptions are string Concatenation (factor <1) and Sum a Column of Integers(factor <2) and Echo Client/Server (factor<2)
Hashes, Part II (facor <2) and Heapsort(factor 1) and Method Calls (factor <2)
and Ackermann's Function is not quite stable
>Still, I haven't really understood where the factor of 2 comes from.
So , it is possible to get a factor of 2 .
But however , i am a little doubting the objectivity of "04/2001. Objective Caml ranks 2nd on speed (between C and C++) on Doug Bagley's computer language shootout.". It is true as merely as a sentence or a news and also is the result of the shootout. but actually the whole speed is not that much fast especially in acdamic area. ( assume C is fast. :-), and for C++, if well programed , is also fast)
This sentence is luring peple to think Ocaml is quite fast ( considering the fact on the maillist that many guys dont believe the factor is only 2 "surly will be more faster" ;-)).
As to the bytecode, i think noone will think it is fast. And some feathers of the ocaml , may not be well mixed up. for example speed and cross platform. Sometime , peple change into Ocaml is for the speed which claimed as well as easy programming.
So i sugest to remove that news from offical site. It seems objective , however not. It is somehow like an advertisement. I think the great charm of Ocaml superior to java is just its acadamic sence not its easy use or speed ( now i found).
Yours
climb
onlyclimb@163.com
2003-01-05
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
reply other threads:[~2003-01-05 2:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=20030105025344.68FF41C67CBB4@sm205.163.com \
--to=onlyclimb@163.com \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=xavier.leroy@inria.fr \
/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