Zitat von Damien Doligez <damien.doligez@inria.fr>:
[...]
> Here, you have an array of lists of pairs.
[...]

So it's the datastructure, that eats up space.


[...]
> In conclusion OCaml is not really well-suited to tight memory
> situations, but usually you can manage.

So, is it the language, not the used data structures, that eat up space?


Are the used data structures in the C++ library as complex as the above
used? Do we compare things that can be compared? What if the
datastructures in the C++ solution would be as complex as in the OCaml
case, would it then also eat up seom GBs, or are they nevertheless
lighter?

Are more specialized/generic data structures needed to be added as
library for OCaml? What would the Extlib-fans offer as possibilities
here? Are there solutions to this?


Ciao,
   Oliver

P.S.: I do not follow all discussions on that list; I really want,
      but's a lot ongoing here since the developers meeting. There are
      some threads I didn't touched so far. Will there be conclusions/
      digests on those discussions? Possibly one of my questions above
      already is addressed there?