From: Martin Weber <Ephaeton@...>
Date: 2003-08-26T01:59:26+09:00
Subject: Re: Rite/Ruby2.0 & Ruby vs OCaml

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 01:35:56AM +0900, Brian Candler wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:40:45AM +0900, mark wrote:
> (...)
> I was actually just trying to get some timings out. It seems ocaml is
> astoundingly fast for that test: 0.51s uncompiled, 0.37s compiled with
> ocamlc, versus 11.6s for the Ruby equivalent:
> 
>   def sum(n)
>     total = 0
>     n.times { |x| total += x }
>     total
>   end
> 
>   puts sum(1000000)
> 
> OTOH, the Ruby version gives the right answer :-)

a) the ocaml version gives the right answer, too if you
b) use bignums.

You're comparing apples to microsofts here, because ocaml is wrapping
over native ints, while ruby automatically uses a Bignum when leaving
Fixnum range.

$ ocamlmktop -custom -o top nums.cma -cclib -lnums

./top
(* sum.ml *)
open Num;;
let sum n =
    let one = (Int 1) in
    let rec aux v acc =
        if v </ one then acc else aux (v-/one) (acc+/v)
    in
        aux (Int n) (Int 0);;

print_string(string_of_num(sum 100000));;

$ ocamlc -o sum1 nums.cma sum.ml
$ ocamlopt -o sum2 nums.cmxa sum.ml