Browse thread
help an o'caml beginner
[
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: | John BEPPU <beppu@l...> |
| Subject: | help an o'caml beginner |
Hi.
Recently, there have been discussions about functional programming
on sites like slashdot, kuro5hin, and advogato. This made me want
to investigate functional languages further. I decided on O'Caml,
because there was a guy on slashdot who was very enthusiastic about
Standard ML. There was also mention of O'Caml which was said to be
a free dialect of ML and people generally had good things to say,
so I checked out the home page. I happen to be a fan of the other
camel (Perl), but I hope you don't hold that against me. ;-)
I've been trying to practice funcional techniques in Perl (mostly
by using recursion more often than I normally would and using
closures to make iterators). However, I felt that I would not ever
get a good understanding of the functional way if I didn't program
in a (more) pure language. That's another reason why I'm here.
Anyway, I hope you guys can help me.
I tried out the recursive fibonacci number program that's in the
manual.
let rec fib n =
if n < 2 then 1 else fib(n-1) + fib(n-2);;
let main () =
let arg = int_of_string Sys.argv.(1) in
print_int(fib arg);
print_newline();
exit 0;;
main ();;
I wrote a C implementation of the same recursive algorithm.
#include <stdio.h>
int fib(int n)
{
if (n < 2) {
return 1;
} else {
return fib(n - 1) + fib(n - 2);
}
}
int main(char *argc, char **argv)
{
printf("%d\n", fib(atoi(argv[1])));
return 0;
}
What surprised the fsck out of me was how fast the O'Caml version
was compared to the C version. I checked the asm output of ocamlopt,
and that was some lean code. I was not expecting results like this,
so I was quite pleasantly surprised. The performance of ocamlopt is
yet another reason I'm here.
Next, I wrote an iterative C version.
#include <stdio.h>
int fib(int n)
{
int val = 2;
int n1 = 2;
int n2 = 1;
int i;
if (n < 2)
return n;
for (i = 2; i < n; i++) {
val = n2 + n1;
n2 = n1;
n1 = val;
}
return val;
}
int main(char *argc, char **argv)
{
printf("%d\n", fib(atoi(argv[1])));
return 0;
}
This was much faster than any of the recursive versions, because it
doesn't have to recompute the same values over and over again.
Next, I tried to fumble my way through making an O'Caml version of
this iterative algorithm, but I failed due to my lack of knowledge
about this language. (I hesitate to print the tutorial, because
that's a lot of paper -- I wish the tutorial were available in HTML.
I just may have to print it, though.)
>>>
If anyone out there could implement an O'Caml fibonacci number
generator that doesn't make redundant calculations, I would really
appreciate it. I just need something to study.
>>>
I wrote a recursive Perl version that doesn't make redundant
calculations, and I'd be interested to see how different in
structure an O'Caml version would be.
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
sub fib_pair {
my $n = shift;
my @seq;
if ($n < 2) {
@seq = (1, 1);
} else {
@seq = fib_pair($n - 1);
@seq = ($seq[1], $seq[0] + $seq[1]);
}
return @seq;
}
sub fib {
my $n = shift;
return (fib_pair($n))[1];
}
print fib($ARGV[0]), "\n";
Thanks for reading this far. I understand that English is a foreign
language to many of you, and I'm terribly sorry I had to write so
much.