]> "Ohad Rodeh" <ORODEH@il.ibm.com> writes: > As for complexity, it as actually gone done, and we've been able to throw away some > code as OCaml has evolved. I don't think C has evolved much (C99 ?) in any way that > it had helped us. > > You can take my word for it, the line count, complexity etc. in a C version that does the > same as Ensemble was a lot higher. >> Anyway, problems in memory management and modularity >> only appear when the programs become big. Usually big >> programs are not written in two languages, so comparison >> is hard. But the example of Horus vs. Ensemble shows that >> there is very large improvement. I am not familiar with Ensemble, but they say in its overview that http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/Projects/Ensemble/overview.html [...] Ensemble System. As Horus/C has matured, we have also encountered issues that recently lead to a complete reimplementation of the system using a subset of the ML programming language. To avoid confusion, we have begun to call this version of our system Ensemble. The subset of ML employed for this work translates directly into C, which can then be compiled in a normal manner, and makes no use of ML's garbage collection features. Thus, the choice of ML has no negative performance implications, and the code itself looks like C++. Does it mean that Ensemble is *not* in fact an Ocaml application? - Dmitry Bely ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners