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
about OcamIL
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2010-05-19 (11:29)
From: Michael Ekstrand <michael@e...>
Subject: Re: about OcamIL
On 05/19/2010 03:46 AM, forum@x9c.fr wrote:
> Jon Harrop <jonathandeanharrop@googlemail.com> a écrit :
> 
> (...)
> 
>> I don't think this is heated at all. We were talking about "high 
>> performance" languages and you cited a bunch of languages that get 
>> whipped by Python on this benchmark:
>>  
>> http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/f-vs-ocaml-vs-haskell-hash-table.html
>>
> 
> Acknowledged. "Whipped" is here 2 times slower on that particular
> benchmark, while Python is rarely within an order of magnitude of
> OCaml code (cf. the language shootout). Moreover, hashtables are
> ubiquitous in Python (and hence probably particularly optimized),
> while they are not so common in Haskell or Caml.

Yes, Python's hash tables are particularly optimized due to their wide
pervasive usage.  When you're testing Python hash tables, you're really
testing a carefully-written, thoroughly-tuned C implementation of hash
tables.

- Michael