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: [Caml-list] Re: productivity improvement
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Ohad Rodeh <ORODEH@i...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: productivity improvement

The numbers for the Ensemble group communication
where more like 7:1, instead of 2:1.

The previous incarnations of the system were written in C. Comparing
line-counts for similar modules
we got a 7:1 reduction when using OCaml. The resulting system was also a
lot more stable and easier
to maintain.

This would counteract the notion of Caml being good only for producing



Ohad Rodeh
tel: +972-3-6401641
IBM Haifa, storage research

                      Dave Berry                                                                                                  
                      <        To:       Markus Mottl <>, Oleg <>   
                      >                             cc:                                                                           
                      Sent by:                      Subject:  Re: [Caml-list] Re: productivity improvement                        
                      14/07/2002 23:44                                                                                            
                      Please respond to Dave                                                                                      

At 13:43 12/07/2002, Markus Mottl wrote:
>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

I find it unlikely that OCaml would increase productivity as much as
Erlang. Erlang is designed primarily for concurrent programming (I
believe).  When people attempt concurrent programming in C, C++ or Java,
they typically use primitive notions such as threads and locks.  This is
noticeably harder and more error-prone than sequential programming.
Therefore any language that concentrates on this problem has more to gain
than a primarily sequential language.  AFAIK, OCaml uses threads and locks
for concurrent programming, and so is no better in this respect than
conventional languages (it could even be worse, depending on how its GC
interacts with threads and distributed code).

As a commercial manager, I've seen a productivity improvement of about 50%
using Java over C++ -- mainly arising from automatic memory management, and
a slightly cleaner language.  I would expect OCaml to have that 50%, and
perhaps another for a more expressive type system, making 2:1.  For some
problems, e.g. compilers, the increase might be more, say 3:1 or 4:1.  For
comparison, this is also the productivity improvement I'd expect to see
using Visual Basic over C/C++ for small GUI/Database problems.

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list:

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: