Hi Markus,
[...]
> Insurance = costs. Furthermore, 1:100 sounds quite a bit too
> astronomical. I'd say that depending on the kind of the problem 1:3
> to 1:10 is reasonable and fits well to the experience of others. E.g.,
> the Erlang developers also report productivity gains in this range on
> large-scale commercial projects. OCaml will most likely have similar
> ratios.

I completely agree with you on those, somewhat impossible to obtain and
prove, productivity ratio gains. 1:3 to 1:10 is reasonable.

However, an interesting ratio seems to be forgotten in the discussion:
infinity :)

I mean, I know a lot of problems that could simply not have been
solved in any other language, and in this casess we observe this
extreme limit ratio.

No flame, please: I know that SML or Haskell could do roughly speaking
the same as Caml could do for the programmer, I also know that once
the program has been written and is fairly stable you can rewrite it
in any other language you want, even C++ or Java, provided you have
enough time and money. I also do know that there are a lot of
situations where you do not have enough time and/or money...

Regards,

Pierre Weis

INRIA, Projet Cristal, Pierre.Weis@inria.fr, http://pauillac.inria.fr/~weis/


-------------------
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