4 ms·
The numbers are indeed not independently verifiable, and it looks like they are actually from 2000, not 2006 when the article was written: I can’t give you t
by the_why_of_y 10y ago
The numbers are indeed not independently verifiable, and it looks like they are actually from 2000, not 2006 when the article was written:
I can’t give you the code I did the LCS tests on – as I said, it was six years ago! It’s somewhere on a backup tape, and I’d need to get permission from my employer to release it.
However the OP denies your "naive C vs. sophisticated OCaml" allegation and claims it was rather the reverse:
At the time, I had just come off of a project where I was part of a team implementing a C++ compiler. C++ was definitely my strongest language at the time. The code in all of the languages was as carefully hand-optimized as I could make it.
And at the time, I had *never* used OCaml; I had used its predecessor, Caml-Light for some experiments about 4 years earlier. But I was *far* from a highly skilled Caml hacker.
Quotes from this comment:
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/11/02/the-c-is-efficient-language-fa/#comment-3811 http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/11/02/the-c-is-efficie...