Browse thread
[Caml-list] Playing Soccer with OCaml
-
Kai Kaminski
- Alan Schmitt
- Xavier Leroy
- Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2001-10-29 (18:26) |
From: | Alan Schmitt <alan.schmitt@i...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Playing Soccer with OCaml |
* Kai Kaminski (kok@wtal.de) wrote: > Now there are several questions for me: > - I'm new to OCaml and functional programming. I have some experience > with C/C++, Pascal and Asm. But I don't think that this will help > me. Do you think it is possible for a newbie to implement such > algorithms within five or six month in reasonably quality? > Yes, definitely. And I think that any experience in programming will help you. > - We use CORBA for communication (omniORB). How difficult is it to > communicate with C++ modules via CORBA. As I understand it, CamlIDL > could help me here, but I'm not sure. > I'm not sure about using camlidl for that, I'll let Xavier answer it. There was a project for writing bindings for Orbit in caml (the page is at http://www.sf.net/projects/camlorb ), but we haven't done much on it for quite a while ... (I was supposed to work on it, but other projects beckoned ... you know how it goes ;-) If there is some goal to push us forward with this project, it would be a good thing. > - Is OCaml fast enough? We need to do all the work for 4-6 robots on > one linux machine (Intel at ~400MHz). > Yes definitely, as caml can be compiled to native code on many architectures. > - Is OCaml a good choice to implement these algorithms? A better > choice than C++ at least? (Ok, I know: OCaml is *always* the better > choice ;-) > You answered this one yourself ;-) More seriously, OCaml is great for fast development (type inference helps a lot) and for complex data structures. > - What about SunOS? This port is not a requirement, but it would be > nice. > From the Readme: The other compiler generates high-performance native code for a number of processors. Compilation takes longer and generates bigger code, but the generated programs deliver excellent performance, while retaining the moderate memory requirements of the bytecode compiler. The native-code compiler currently runs on the following platforms: Intel Pentium processors: PCs under Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Windows, NextStep, Solaris 2, BeOS. Alpha processors: Digital/Compaq Alpha machines under Digital Unix/Compaq Tru64, Linux, NetBSD and OpenBSD. Sparc processors: Sun Sparc under SunOS 4.1, Solaris 2, NetBSD, Linux Mips processors: SGI workstations and mainframes under IRIX 6 HP PA-RISC processors: HP 9000/700 under HPUX 10 PowerPC processors: IBM RS6000 and PowerPC workstations under AIX 4.3, PowerMacintosh under MkLinux, LinuxPPC, MacOS X Strong ARM processors: Corel Netwinder under Linux Intel IA64 processors: prototypes under Linux Alan -- The hacker: someone who figured things out and made something cool happen. ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr