]> [I work for IBM. Notwithstanding, I'm really not a Java shill. But, well, try whatever you do on the IBM JDKs, or the _Sunsoft_ _Solaris_ JDKs.] Actually, I think you'll find that for tight integer loops and floating-point stuff, Java is already as fast as good C++. After all, that's what the JIT guys optimized first and best. That said, I've found that in fact, you can get as good performance from Java, as from Perl or Caml. You just gotta really optimize your Java code in strange (non-JDK-compliant) ways. --chet-- >>>>> "NW" == Noel Welsh <noelwelsh@yahoo.com> writes: NW> --- onlyclimb <onlyclimb@163.com> wrote: >> Is it normal that my ocaml program is only 2 times faster than >> the java counterpart ?(using the same method and complied into >> native. jdk is 1.4.1 NW> It depends entirely on the program. I wouldn't expect a huge NW> difference in speed in, say, an HTTP server where most of the NW> time is spent waiting for the disk. In numeric applications I NW> would expect O'Caml to be significantly faster than Java. ------------------- 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