Browse thread
Is OCaml fast?
-
Thanassis Tsiodras
- Gregory Bellier
- Sylvain Le Gall
- Dario Teixeira
- Gerd Stolpmann
- Fabrice Le Fessant
- Oliver Bandel
- Isaac Gouy
-
David Allsopp
- Isaac Gouy
- Cedric Cellier
- Vincent Aravantinos
- Isaac Gouy
[
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: | 2010-11-24 (18:39) |
From: | Isaac Gouy <igouy2@y...> |
Subject: | Re: Is OCaml fast? |
David Allsopp <dra-news <at> metastack.com> writes: -snip- > Reducing an entire programming language's strengths (or > weaknesses!) to a single number is just not really realistic - the truth is more complex than one > single-precision floating point number (or even an array of them) can describe. (NB. The shootout > doesn't claim that the final ranking displayed is anything other than a score of how well the languages did > at the various benchmarks given - but a graph like that is easy to interpret erroneously in that way) -snip- That summary page > > (http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-languages-are- > > fastest.php) shows box plots (quartiles, outliers, median) of the normalized timing measurements for each of the tasks, for each of the language implementations. A graph like that shows some of those language implementations are very fast for some benchmark programs and very slow for others. To characterize that as "reducing an entire programming language's strengths (or weaknesses!) to a single number" seems kind-of misleading. Especially when the question that page answers is stated 3 times - "Which programming language implementations have the fastest benchmark programs?"