Browse thread
Re: When functional languages can be accepted by industry?
- Michael Hicks
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Michael Hicks <mwh@d...> |
| Subject: | Re: When functional languages can be accepted by industry? |
> I believe that the Stalin compiler for Scheme, which is a whole program > compiler (you give up separate compilation) has done better than C on some > much more significant programs than fibonacci. I suspect that any compiler > which abandons separate compilation and does aggressive whole program > analysis may have problems with extremely large programs, but I don't have > evidence to back this up. > > I presume that a similar compiler for an ML variant could be written. Given > that the Caml team has limited resources, I'd rather they spend them > elsewhere, as I am satisfied with the performance of OCaml for the problems > I apply it to. I realize that others have different priorities. In fact, researchers at NECI have developed a whole-program Standard ML compiler, called MLton. You can read about it at http://external.nj.nec.com/PLS/MLton/ In general, its programs run 2-3x faster than SML/NJ, but occasionally they are a bit slower. Mike -- Michael Hicks Ph.D. Candidate, the University of Pennsylvania http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~mwh mailto://mwh@dsl.cis.upenn.edu "Every time someone asks me to do something, I ask if they want French fries with that." -- testimonial of a former McDonald's employee