[
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: | 2008-06-21 (23:38) |
From: | David Teller <David.Teller@u...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] cost of monads |
If you're interested, I'm currently putting the last touch on a paper dealing with monads in OCaml -- including some benchmarks. I'll share the data once I'm done with the writing. Cheers, David On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 11:23 -0700, Warren Harris wrote: > I'm considering writing a moderate sized program with high performance > needs in a monad / monad transformer style in ocaml. Although I > believe that this abstraction will offer me benefits in hiding some > complexity, some of the monad transformers I would like to "stack" are > quite simple (e.g. a state-transition monad), and I'm concerned that > my program will be paying a high performance cost due to high function > call overhead -- ones which cannot be optimized away due to module > boundaries. > > I know that the real answer here is "profile it and find out"... but I > thought that asking for other's experience might be a good first step. > Perhaps someone can offer a technique to make this work well, or a > word of caution on why this should be avoided. I realize that most of > the monad work happens in haskell (and I sometimes feel that I'm > reinventing the wheel -- although it's very educational!), but I'd > prefer to stick with ocaml if possible. > > Warren > -- David Teller Security of Distributed Systems http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act brings liquidations.