]> >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). Thanks Yours climb onlyclimb@163.com 2003-01-03 ------------------- 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