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: [Caml-list] Interactive technical computing
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2007-03-09 (15:35)
From: Robert Fischer <RFischer@R...>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Interactive technical computing
Performance of using F# linking into native applications is better than using OCaml bytecode and linking into native applications?  Is F# faster than OCaml bytecode these days?  Is the OCaml bytecode's link into dynamic libraries somehow slowing things down?

I'm still having trouble seeing what you're getting at -- sorry if I'm being dense.

~~ Robert.

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of skaller
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 9:22 AM
To: Robert Fischer
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Interactive technical computing

On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 08:13 -0600, Robert Fischer wrote:
> Performance of Ocaml's bytecode is slower than F#?  Really?

I wrote:
> > As long as you play within the bounds of their VM.  This is no different than Ocaml.
> Performance is different :) That's why I use Ocaml native code
> exclusively, which doesn't support dynamic loading (yet :)

I have no idea about performance of F#: I'm talking about
using a Debian based Linux operating system which uses
dynamic loading of high performance machine binaries.

I once implement a Python interpreter in Ocaml, call Vyper.
One of the reasons I gave up was that to extend it with
the equivalent of Python's C modules, I had to write the
equivalent code in Ocaml and *statically* link it into
the program.

The main reason for doing this wasn't performance, but
to provide bindings to C libraries.

John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++:

Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
Beginner's list:
Bug reports: