11:58 am, 14 Apr 04
something is seriously wrong here
Playing with a Haskell compiler:
lulu:~/hs% cat test.hs
module Main where
main :: IO ()
main = do putStr "ok\n"
lulu:~/hs% time ghc test.hs
ghc test.hs 2.61s user 0.67s system 99% cpu 3.283 total2.6 seconds to compile a three line program!?lulu:~/hs% ./a.out ok lulu:~/hs% ls -l a.out -rwxr-xr-x 1 martine martine 4741690 2004-04-14 11:55 a.outAnd the executable is 4.7mb.
EC_(GHCziBase_unpackCStringzh_closure); SRT(sz7_srt) &GHCziBase_unpackCStringzh_closure}; SET_STATIC_HDR(sz7_closure,sz7_info,0,static ,II_) , {(L_)0, (L_)0, (L_)0} }; IF_(sz7_entry); static StgWord sz7_info[] = { (W_)(sz7_entry),(W_)(0x2),(W_)(0x180001),(W_)(((W_ *)(sz7_srt))+(I_)(0)) }; EC_(GHCziBase_unpackCStringzh_closure); IF_(sz7_entry) { FB_ HP_STK_CHK_NP(4,3,); SET_HDR_(Hp-2,(P_)&stg_CAF_BLACKHOLE_info,0,0); UPD_CAF(R1.p,Hp-2); PUSH_UPD_FRAME(Hp-2,0); Sp[-3]=(W_)("ok\012"); R1.p=(P_)&GHCziBase_unpackCStringzh_closure; Sp=Sp-4; JMP_(stg_ap_n_ret); FE_ }I take it you're sticking with OCaml?
And Haskell's generation prospects are especially bad, because it's lazy. Without any knowledge of the implementation, I would guess that that block of code I had above was just the string constant "ok\n", wrapped up in all the metadata needed to track whether it had been evalutated yet.
All of these languages are just meant to expand my vocabulary... I'm pretty sure Haskell is going to be the next one.