English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
Re: Why OCaml sucks
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2008-05-12 (14:21)
From: Jon Harrop <jon@f...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks
On Monday 12 May 2008 13:54:45 Kuba Ober wrote:
> > 5. Strings: pushing unicode throughout a general purpose language is a
> > mistake, IMHO. This is why languages like Java and C# are so slow.
> Unicode by itself, when wider-than-byte encodings are used, adds "zero"
> runtime overhead; the only overhead is storage (2 or 4 bytes per
> character).

You cannot degrade memory consumption without also degrading performance. 
Moreover, there are hidden costs such as the added complexity in a lexer 
which potentially has 256x larger dispatch tables or an extra indirection for 
every byte read.

> Given that storage is cheap, I'd much rather have Unicode support than lack
> of it.

Sure. I don't mind unicode being available. I just don't want to have to use 
it myself because it is of no benefit to me (or many other people) but is a 
significant cost.

Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.