Version franēaise
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
[NEWBIE] is there an in-place map?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Kuba Ober <ober.14@o...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [NEWBIE] is there an in-place map?
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, you wrote:
> Brian Hurt wrote:
> > The OP did say "in place modification.
> Kuba also said "the output array is given as the argument, not as a
> return value."
> > It depends.  If you have to use multiple references to make the for-loop
> > work, then I've seen tail recursion be faster (and clearer).
> Any example of a faster tail recursion?
> > Also, if
> > you recalculate the ending requirement every recursive call, recursion
> > can be slower (in the above for loop above, for example, Array.length is
> > gaurenteed to be called only once).
> I have no problems precalculating the Array.length value, or recursing
> down to 0.
> > Brian
> A little testing results in some data: for arrays of 1024 ints and
> simple arithmetic operations, I get a 9% speed increase in using a for
> loop over recursion.

It seems to be such a basic operation, I was thinking that it must be there. is fine and dandy, but it is a premature pessimization if used 
repeatedly unless the compiler would be very smart about it. It's one of the 
common Java pessimizations too: generating lots of garbage at the same spot 
in a tight loop.

Cheers, Kuba