From: Martin Weber <Ephaeton@...>
Date: 2003-08-25T06:56:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Rite/Ruby2.0 & Ruby vs OCaml

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:26:54AM +0900, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:27:23AM +0900, Andreas Hauser wrote:
> 
> > FWIW, i tried some of the shoutout benchmarks
> > and i have very different results.
> > 
> > For example, he claims ocaml to be faster than gcc in
> > the Fibonacci test (0.18 vs. 0.24), while
> > on any sytem that i tested C is much faster (e.g. 1.8 to 0.19).

C != gcc.

> 
> on those systems I tried (x86, m68k) the ocaml version is faster.
> The margin is small but I am still surprised something is faster
> than gcc :)

You talk as if gcc was a good compiler :) just try the bloated 3.3
against intel's compiler on x86 or the fine 2.95 on the x86 against
the intel compiler and you'll approach what is a good compiler (at
least on x86). Yes I know gcc is portable (and thus fine) but it's
basically the worst-choice-common-denominator you have available for
most platforms...

I'm not surprised stuff is faster than gcc. I'm surprised so many
things build on gcc really.

-Martin