Team PLClub ICFP entry -- comparing the performance of OCAML and SML

[Stephen Weeks]

> You say you "got roughly the same results" for large and fractal,
> however the numbers from 110.25 are nearly twice as fast as those for 
> 110.29. Which set of number (those in 110.29 or those in 110.25) are
> the correct ones?

My apologies for the confusion.  I was responding to John's statement that "the
numbers for SML/NJ 110.25 on fractal and large look suspect".  I reran the large
and fractal benchmarks under 110.25 and got roughly the same results as when I
ran the large and fractal benchmarks under 110.25 before.  That is, I have no
reason to believe any of the numbers were wrong.  I believe that 110.29
introduced a slowdown over 110.25 for those two benchmarks.

> In some sense the question is mute, as SML/NJ is almost universally
> two times slower than CAML.

Even more impressive for the OCAML compiler is the fact that the PLClub entry
was compiled using separate compilation (please correct me if I'm wrong) but the
MLton entry was compiled whole program (by necessity) and the SML/NJ entry was
compiled whole program (because it improves the speed).