> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 22:21:24 Jan Kybic wrote:
>> > and crashes rather than performance. Moreover, I would note that the
>> > performant ATS code out there seems to go to *great* lengths to avoid the
>> > GC whenever possible, so I suspect it is extremely slow in the context of
>> > heavily allocating code or many short-lived values (much like HLVM). For
>>
>> This will be easy to test.
>
> I'd like to know what you find in this respect.

Here are my preliminary results. Please note that I am a beginner in
ATS so my ATS code is rather ugly. But it is  a more or less direct
translation from Ocaml. I imagine the ATS results can be improved. 
I have asked at the ATS list about that.

I have implemented two benchmarks:

- eight queens, I actually used ten. I believe the original Ocaml
  implementation was probably yours. It uses lists as a primary
  structure, so there is a lot of allocations. On this task, ATS needs
  about 50% more time than Ocaml.

- bubble sort on an array of doubles. Here ATS is more than 10 times
  faster than Ocaml (for n=10000).

My code can be found at http://cmp.felk.cvut.cz/~kybic/share/ats_tests.zip

Jan

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Kybic <kybic@fel.cvut.cz>                       tel. +420 2 2435 5721
http://cmp.felk.cvut.cz/~kybic                      ICQ 200569450