Re: [Caml-list] Question on writing efficient Ocaml.

[Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>]

On Thursday 28 December 2006 16:03, Ian Oversby wrote:
> Does this mean that unboxing is inefficient in OCaml?

Yes. However, you've had to go out of your way to make the OCaml slow in this 
case.

> I've written an 
> alternative version of the C++ that returns NULL instead of out of bound
> values which was close to the same speed so it would be a little
> disappointing if I couldn't achieve something similar in OCaml with Some /
> None.

You would be better off focusing on higher-level optimisations, like 
algorithmic optimisations.

> >You might want to compare with this solution of the queens problem in
> >ocaml:
> >   http://caml.inria.fr/pub/old_caml_site/Examples/oc/basics/queens.ml
>
> I've written a queens solver along the same lines which is much faster than
> my other example as it makes many fewer calls and constructs fewer (and
> simpler) boards.

Why are you optimising this version if you already have a faster one?

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists