From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C625BC69 for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 10:56:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pih-relay04.plus.net (pih-relay04.plus.net [212.159.14.131]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l4U8u9lT028916 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 10:56:10 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by pih-relay04.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1HtJyQ-0006kT-RI for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Wed, 30 May 2007 09:56:07 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Faking concurrency using Unix forks and pipes Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 09:50:35 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200705300442.59906.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <6f9f8f4a0705300130h3a536fb4hc6792afd61ee943b@mail.gmail.com> <6f9f8f4a0705300132l1bf8775dwedfceede50e34c54@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6f9f8f4a0705300132l1bf8775dwedfceede50e34c54@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705300950.36067.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 465D3C29.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; forks:01 developement:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 frog:98 unix:01 wrote:01 slower:01 slower:01 caml-list:01 tracing:01 lisp:01 concurrency:02 languages:03 concurrent:03 On Wednesday 30 May 2007 09:32:48 Loup Vaillant wrote: > As far as I know, the developement team had made it quite clear that > there will be no concurent GC (not in the near future, at least). The > main reason is performance loss. Might be interesting to compare the performance of some languages using my ray tracer: C++: 3.67s OCaml: 3.97s F#: 5.26s Lisp: 6.04s Scheme: 6.29s Java: 6.53s F# is ~30% slower than OCaml but can be made almost twice as fast on my dual core machine by tracing concurrently. However, Java is also a concurrent static language and it is much slower. Maybe this reflects more effort having gone into the .NET GC. I should also note that the F# and Scheme are both 32-bit. I wonder how well F# would do if it were 64-bit... :-) -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. OCaml for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?e