http://www.ffconsultancy.com/free/ray_tracer/languages.html
OCaml is significantly more concise that the other languages (even SML) but
the big surprise for me was the incredible performance of straightforwardly-
written Mlton-compiled SML, even on AMD64 where it lacks a native code-gen.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists
_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
Thanks. A lot of very interesting stuff there. I'm surprised that
SMLNJ is as fast as OCamlopt on x86. I thought it had a reputation for
being slow because it's "continuations-based" (or whatever). Java is
the only one bytecode-compiled, so it's also interesting that it's
competitive in speed.
It might be interesting to see how C/C++ does when linked with Boehm's
GC. My own experiments with it impressed me very much.
Ahem, it seems that the evil Matthias Blume worked an ingenious bug into his
SML port of my ray tracer which sped it up by 70%. So I've redone the study
and SML is now much less favourable.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists
_______________________________________________
Matthias is denying all knowledge of this so I guess I'll have to take
responsibility myself. Anyhow, I've updated the language comparison with a
table comparing OCaml and SML:
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/free/ray_tracer/languages.html
--