Browse thread
Comparison of OCaml and MLton for numerics
-
Yuanchen Zhu
- Jon Harrop
- Daniel_Bünzli
- Christophe Raffalli
- Christophe Raffalli
[
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: | Brian Hurt <bhurt@j...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Comparison of OCaml and MLton for numerics |
Stephen Weeks wrote: > The same arguments that one can make for simple compilation > strategies leading to predictable performance could be used to argue > that we > should all program in C or in assembly. What's humorous about this statement is that most C compilers now are implementing a lot of these fancy optimizations, even whole-program optimizations (see LLVM), which makes predicting their performance equally tricky to predict. I think the real reason Ocaml doesn't have advanced optimizations and whole program analysis is just one of time vr.s value. It hasn't been valuable enough to someone yet to take the time and put in the work to implement them. The position of most people on this list, including INRIA, seems to be "it'd be nice, and we'd definately use it if it were available, but at the moment we're doing something more important/more interesting/else..." Brian