Re: speed versus C

From: Alain Frisch (
Date: Mon Oct 11 1999 - 01:54:15 MET DST

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:54:15 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Alain Frisch <>
Subject: Re: speed versus C
In-Reply-To: <24949.199910102048@buckie>

On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, William Chesters wrote:
> My point was simply that nearly every* feature of ocaml, however
> abstract in appearance, compiles directly, and compositionally, onto
> an idiom which one might well use in C or even assembler---give or
> take some amount of sugar. Looking at this fact one way round, I
> * apart from GC and the ocaml classes (of which I must admit I am
> slightly suspicious, because of the significant overhead in a method
> call---you don't really want to use them in an inner loop)

I would also add boxing/unboxing, and structural comparison to the list of
important features which aren't well implemented in classical

Do you think it would be easy to design processors with built-in support
for boxed values, GC tags, OO, etc ... that is, a concrete OCaml machine ?

Alain Frisch

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