Browse thread
[Caml-list] productivity improvement
[
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: | -- (:) |
| From: | Nicolas Cannasse <warplayer@f...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Universal Serializer (was: productivity improvement) |
> > >BTW OCaml functional programming and memory management are two ways of > > >increasing productivity. Pattern matching on structures is also wonderful. > > >For most of the programs, I will say that the productivity rate against C is > > >around 1:3. > > > > > >Nicolas Cannasse > > > > > You must be an academic.:-) Try between 10:1 and 100:1, > > *assuming* that any libraries you need are available, > > and a reasonably complex piece of software. > > > > I agree, but the productivity increase is going to depend a lot on the > experience and skill of the ocaml programmer. As a newbie, I find myself > using a lot of lame imperative idioms before discovering more elegant (and > concise) functional ones. Yes perhaps I've been written too much C++ in my childhood so I'm no more able to introduce memory bugs in C++ code :)) It's easier when you're using good data structures, and a good debugger MSVC++ one is wonderfull , sorry of *nix guys. ) > > The biggest problem in Ocaml is type inference, > > and the resulting loss of localisation of error diagnostics, but > > such compile time errors can be resolved *definitely*; > > that is, you know for sure when you've fixed them > > (because the compiler stops hassling you). > > What do you mean by "loss of localisation of error diagnostics"? Do you > mean that a type error in one location giving an expression which can still > compile (but to the wrong type) results in an obscure error message > elsewhere? I agree that that's occasionally a minor pain, but it's hardly > in the same league with memory leaks etc. If that's ocaml's biggest > problem, then ocaml is the best computer language I've ever seen. It is :) Actually I really think that the reading of errors messages and the "type debugging" that sometimes you have to do is really a part of the knowledge of the language. I mean, instead of learning only syntax ( as in C ) you also have to learn to handle such errors. Quite difficult in the beggining, it becomes easier later.... ( BTW, that could be the definition of "what is a good tool" ) Nicolas Cannasse ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners