chet@watson.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> The Caml XML parser I wrote was competitive with XML4C (slightly faster),
> and blew XML4J out of the water (10x).
> 
> This was using the native-code compiler.
> 
> The Caml XSL processor I wrote handily beat Java XSL processors.
> 
> My guess is that if you're thinking of writing in C, and you don't
> need low-level access to real memory and such, you will find that CAML
> is more than fast enough.

Thanks for the info: I suspected that this was the case,
quite apart from being easier to develop with.

My biggest problem using ocaml is that I'm still a naive user:
I cannot tell easily which operations will be fast and which will not.
In C/C++ I don't have this problem since I understand many of the
ways in which it is implemented.

-- 
John Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au
1/10 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia
homepage: http://www.maxtal.com.au/~skaller
downloads: http://www.triode.net.au/~skaller