And almost all of the "Haskell" solutions (reverse-complement,
spectral-norm, Mandelbrot, n-body, fannkuch-redux, k-nucleotide, regex-dna)
abuse GHC's FFI in order to work around Haskell.

The k-nucleotide benchmark in Haskell even uses malloc! Ketil Malde crafted
a much better solution but noted:

  "This is considered cheating, since it is the easy and natural way to do
it." -
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Shootout/Knucleotide

Cheers,
Jon.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr [mailto:caml-list-
> bounces@yquem.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Christophe TROESTLER
> Sent: 23 November 2010 10:38
> To: igouy2@yahoo.com
> Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?
> 
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 02:03:48 +0000, Isaac Gouy wrote:
> >
> > > C version : 12.11 secs
> > > OCaml version : 47.22 secs
> > > OCaml version with GC parameters tuned ("interesting alternative"
> >  section) : 12.67 secs
> >
> > And of course you know because that GC tuned OCaml program is shown
> >  on the
> > benchmarks game website ;-)
> > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/program.php?test=binarytrees&
> > lang=ocaml&id=1
> 
> Since you are here, please explain why C can use memory pools and vec
> tor instructions but tuning the GC of OCaml ¯ although it is part of
> the standard library ¯ is considered an "alternative".
> 
> Best,
> C.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs