Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Re: Re: [Caml-list] speed
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-01-03 (15:59)
From: climb <onlyclimb@1...>
Subject: Re: Re: [Caml-list] speed
>That said, by and large I find that when you don't go near issues of
>allocation and interprocedural optimization, Java is and can be as
>fast as Caml.  *However*, when you _do_ go near those things, e.g. if
>you do anything I/O or string-processing-intensive, well,
>  go get a rocking chair, 'cos you're gonna have a looong wait.
I quite agree with it. 
one part of my program (on bio sequence analyze)  is dealing with IO and string- processing. The Ocaml version is amazingly faster than java.( amazing , indeed) .
however if comes to other part ( simulation of trees ) the ocaml version is not that fast than java. The factor 2 (in fact) is not quite easy to achieve.  especially if contains some recursive types and random numbers ( so,i changed it into Ocamlgsl  Gsl_rng.t and using a faster type of rng). I found if i define tree in a recursive way( i have tried both functional style like in the page 50 in O' book and imperative style , using module of node and tree similar with java's node class and tree class), the factor is 1 or so. when  i tried to get rid of any recursive definition by using an array to contain nodes and each node only contain index of  the children , at this case the factor is 1.8 or 2 . However , i think this trick is somehow a litte  ugly .
Since i am still quite new to ocaml, can any expert tell me why recursive types reduce the speed ( or my experice above is wrong). 



To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: