Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Caml productivity.
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Pal-Kristian Engstad <engstad@n...>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Caml productivity.
Yes, it is pretty hard - but the upside is that given a given architecture
that you know well, you can sometimes optimize routines up to a factor of
400 of an already optimized (data and code optimization) routine. In fact,
that I can do this is specifically why my company hires me... As a matter of
fact, the ocaml programs I've written are all tools to aid me in the process
of optimizing for the current architecture. I wouldn't ever dream of ocaml
being able to do something similar, but it does strike me that it is
possible to be able to put some low-level stuff into ocaml itself. Or
perhaps I am mistaken?


-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 11:41 AM
Cc: Caml-List@Inria.Fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Caml productivity.

Pal-Kristian Engstad wrote:
> ... I want to have the capability to make
> the code even better. To do that, one needs to be able to make use of
> the hardware, i.e. get down to the bare bones of your platform.
> ...

Isn't this fairly impossible for an applications programmer programming
the popular modern computers?  Don't these machines implement their
features through low-level virtual machines?  Re-order and rewrite
instructions?  Speculatively branch?  Execute sequential instructions
in parallel? Have hierarchical memory caches that they manage
impervious to the desires of the programmer?  Etc, etc, etc?

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list:

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: