Browse thread
[Caml-list] productivity improvement
[
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: | Oleg <oleg_inconnu@m...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] productivity improvement |
On Tuesday 09 July 2002 02:20 pm, Shannon --jj Behrens wrote:
> I wrote a bunch of programs comparing several
> languages using two different algorithms ("Simple" and
> "Modcount") for finding primes. Eventually, I hope to
> throw these up on a Web page, but here is a summary of
> the results:
>
> Simple:
> C:
> Source: 76 lines
> Binary: 5833 bytes
> Sample Run: 1.56 seconds
> Cyclone:
> Source: 63 lines
> Binary: 127264 bytes
> Sample Run: 1.63 seconds
> Ocaml:
> Source: 35 lines
> Binary: 138726 bytes
> Sample Run: 3.57 seconds
> Python:
> Source: 28 lines
> Binary: 1629 bytes
> Sample Run: 13.6 seconds
>
> ModCount:
> C:
> Source: 95 lines
> Binary: 6020 bytes
> Sample Run: 1.08 seconds
> Cyclone:
> Source: 83 lines
> Binary: 127391 bytes
> Sample Run: 1.35 seconds
> Ocaml:
> Source: 54 lines
> Binary: 139091 bytes
> Sample Run: 3.66 seconds
> Python:
> Source: 44 lines
> Binary: 4054 bytes
> Sample Run: 91.8 seconds
>
> Line counts do not include blank lines or comments.
Hi
I intensionally used "program size" and not LOC, because C/C++ programmers
like to use short lines and very short lines (containing a single "{" or
"}"). How do the program sizes compare in terms of the number of non-blank
characters, for example? [1]
Thanks
Oleg
[1] cat source | sed "s/ //" | wc -c
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners