On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 12:52:25PM -0500, Chet Murthy wrote:
> 
> Not to contradict Xavier, because in essence, he is right -- Caml is
> indeed far faster than Java on any realistic applications in almost
> any area I have ever bothered to try -- but the story as to Java is
> actually rather complicated.
> 
> (1) different JDKs exhibit remarkably different results on real-world
> examples, as their implementors have different backgrounds.  I
> remember that the first JITs all did great on integer and
> floating-point loops, and that was _it_ -- the rest of the time, they
> were often slower than just a hack like inlining interpreter
> code-segments.  This is just a human thing.

Do you have any idea how gcj does, compared to ocamlopt maybe ? After
all, if i am not wrong, both generate native code.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
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