Re: speed versus C

From: skaller (skaller@maxtal.com.au)
Date: Wed Oct 06 1999 - 12:22:51 MET DST

Next message: Jens Olsson: "Reply to: speed versus C"
Previous message: skaller: "Re: Can someone explain?"
Maybe in reply to: Jan Brosius: "speed versus C"
Next in thread: Gerd Stolpmann: "Re: speed versus C"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:22:51 +1000
From: skaller <skaller@maxtal.com.au>
To: chet@watson.ibm.com
Subject: Re: speed versus C

chet@watson.ibm.com wrote:
>
> The Caml XML parser I wrote was competitive with XML4C (slightly faster),
> and blew XML4J out of the water (10x).
>
> This was using the native-code compiler.
>
> The Caml XSL processor I wrote handily beat Java XSL processors.
>
> My guess is that if you're thinking of writing in C, and you don't
> need low-level access to real memory and such, you will find that CAML
> is more than fast enough.

Thanks for the info: I suspected that this was the case,
quite apart from being easier to develop with.

My biggest problem using ocaml is that I'm still a naive user:
I cannot tell easily which operations will be fast and which will not.
In C/C++ I don't have this problem since I understand many of the
ways in which it is implemented.

-- 
John Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au
1/10 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia
homepage: http://www.maxtal.com.au/~skaller
downloads: http://www.triode.net.au/~skaller

Next message: Jens Olsson: "Reply to: speed versus C"
Previous message: skaller: "Re: Can someone explain?"
Maybe in reply to: Jan Brosius: "speed versus C"
Next in thread: Gerd Stolpmann: "Re: speed versus C"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:26 MET