From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zilles@1969web.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled 
	version=3.1.3
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03DD3BBCA
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Mon, 12 May 2008 21:39:14 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: At0SALI5KEjQOfEbZWdsb2JhbACBU4gsiA4SAh6aAg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,475,1204498800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="12505787"
Received: from lgb-static-208.57.241.27.mpowercom.net (HELO sanddune.1969web.com) ([208.57.241.27])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 12 May 2008 21:39:14 +0200
Received: from [10.3.2.21] (zilles.1969web.com [10.3.2.21])
	by sanddune.1969web.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14248BAD4AA;
	Mon, 12 May 2008 12:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48289D4E.4050005@1969web.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 12:41:02 -0700
From: Karl Zilles <zilles@1969web.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Arthur Chan <baguasquirrel@gmail.com>
Cc: Kuba Ober <ober.14@osu.edu>, caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks
References: <200805090139.54870.jon@ffconsultancy.com>	<200805120901.54129.ober.14@osu.edu> <74cabd9e0805121218r75725b23g906282a09dfd00d3@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <74cabd9e0805121218r75725b23g906282a09dfd00d3@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 inlining:01 higher-order:01 inlined:01 pet:98 sml:01 wrote:01 inline:01 corrected:01 caml-list:01 caml-list:01 functions:01 functions:01 arithmetic:01 

Arthur Chan wrote:
> 
>     Yet, if you look at things in the light of "optimization is
>     depessimization",
>     you'd much rather have easier to read code, than code which is ugly
>     because
>     you preoptimized it by hand. This is why, for me, Ocaml has a long
>     way to go
>     to make it useful for run-of-the-mill production code. My pet peev is
>     performance penalty paid for writing in functional style where it
>     actually
>     makes sense -- say passing an arithmetic operator to a map-style
>     function.
> 
> 
> What do you mean by this?  What language would not incur this kind of 
> performance hit?  Is F# able to optimize this out or were you referring 
> to something else?

For Ocaml: "when inlining higher-order functions with known function 
arguments,  those known function arguments are not themselves inlined."

http://camltest.inria.fr/pub/old_caml_site/caml-list/1048.html

(This is an old post, if things have changed I would love to be corrected.)

sml can inline such functions, making passing + to a map style function 
potentially as efficient as writing a procedural loop.