[
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: | Jon Harrop <jon@f...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Re: Ocaml for Scientific computing |
On Tuesday 25 September 2007 19:46:34 skaller wrote: > On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 13:27 -0400, Mike Lin wrote: > > On Sep 25, 7:11 am, Alex Mikhalev <a.mikha...@cranfield.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > For numerical computing, I wish ocamlopt would do at least basic loop > > optimizations, like hoisting invariant values -- this type of stuff is > > easily done manually, but often at the expense of code readability. > > Gcc does this quite well I think. However in a higher level > procedural language (like Ocaml and Felix) it is very hard > to get right and potentially very expensive. I'm not sure that it is conceptually more difficult to do similar things for OCaml but my vote goes to hoisting bounds checks. I don't like having to write unsafe code by hand in OCaml and F# does a great job of improving performance by hoisting bounds checks. I discussed some of the benchmarks where F# is faster than OCaml recently on one of our blogs: http://ocamlnews.blogspot.com/2007/09/spectral-norm.html For some reason, the current implementation of spectral-norm on the shootout leaves out some important optimizations in OCaml. F# doesn't require these optimizations to be done by hand. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. OCaml for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?e