Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Re: SML/NJ versus O'Caml
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: David McClain <dmcclain@a...>
Subject: Re: SML/NJ versus O'Caml
...but the OCaml team didn't write that stuff, they just put them up on
their site! As one of the commenters on that site, I did a fairly lengthy
comparison of languages including SML and OCaml among about a dozen others
and finally settled on OCaml for its speed, ease of foreign function
integration, type safety, available documentation, and terseness of

My first real trial of OCaml was a very complicated numeric analysis of
optical performance. I worked for two solid weeks in another language and it
still didn't quite work correctly. After three intense days with OCaml,
including writing a bunch of supporting C code to handle graphical displays,
I managed to get an analysis program that worked correctly the first time
out of the chute -- no debugging necessary!


David McClain, Sr. Scientist, Raytheon Systems Co., Tucson, AZ

-----Original Message-----
From: Gabriel Dos_Reis <>
To: <>
Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: SML/NJ versus O'Caml

>"Mattias Waldau" <> writes:
>| I found this information myself:
>| and it is very positive about O'Caml.
>No offense intended, but given the address the contrary would have
>surprised me :-)
>-- Gaby