\Jon suggested that it would be good to implement some significant
programs in different functional languages for comparison. He
suggested interpreters for procedural languages like Basic.

QUOTE
There seems to be a great deal of interest from the functional
programming community in benchmarking. ..... I would also like to see
regexps, program evaluators (rewriters, interpreters and compilers)
and other benchmarks
UNQUOTE

Ok; here's a response - let's see if people want to try.

***********************************************************
The task is to implement an interpreter for a language Minim and run a
stock Minim program that adds two numbers x and y together where x =
100000 (10^5) and y = 100000 (10^5) and give the times.
***********************************************************

Minim is a very basic language - fairly close to assembly. Minim can

Mark Tarver ukonline.co.uk> writes:

I think you are being unfair here. Clearly, you designed the language
specifically so that it can be parsed trivially using Lisp.
(Well, at least as long as you allow an extra pair of parentheses
around your program -- something that the original grammar you posted
did not.)
And, strangely, you don't even stick to that syntax but use a
different one in your Qi implementation...

Mark Tarver wrote:

Allow me to cripple the OCaml, making it as featureless as the Lisp:

module Bindings = Map.Make(String)

let set m x y = Bindings.add x y m
let get m x = Bindings.find x m

let tags_of program =
let aux (pc, tags) = function
| `Tag t -> pc+1, Bindings.add t pc tags
| _ -> pc+1, tags in
let _, tags = Array.fold_left aux (0, Bindings.empty) program in
tags

let eval vars = function
| `Lit n -> n
| `Var v -> get vars v

Matthias Blume wrote:

It would be unfair to compare the similar-sized Lisp and OCaml
implementations when only the OCaml implements a lexer and parser. Provided
you strip the lexer and parser from the OCaml, I think it is fair. The
OCaml remains several times faster and is now several times shorter as
well.

On Jul 20, 8:01 am, Jon Harrop ffconsultancy.com> wrote:

Great!

Now go tell other people how OCaml/F# are superior to lisp and leave
those of us who noticed that the above is nothing more than a claim
about your limitations in peace.

-andy

On 20 Jul, 15:50, Matthias Blume wrote:

On 20 Jul, 16:01, Jon Harrop ffconsultancy.com> wrote:

On 19 Jul, 20:47, Joachim Durchholz durchholz.org> wrote:

\I don't reckon so; Lisp is a very easy target for *compiling* Minim.
Here's the code which runs under the Qi environment. It takes a Minim
program in one file and outputs the corresponding Lisp to be LOADed
into Qi.\

Mark Tarver wrote:

This is the input program according to the task that you set and the grammar
that you provided:

Jon Harrop ffconsultancy.com> writes: