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: | Dave Berry <daveb@t...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Re: productivity improvement |
At 00:13 15/07/2002, Markus Mottl wrote: >Erlang is very niche-specific (though, fault-tolerant distributed >computation is surely a worthy niche). I think that Erlang would find >it tough to compete against OCaml in most other niches That Erlang is niche-specific is exactly my point -- it's a niche that is ripe for major productivity improvements, and I can believe a factor of 10:1 for Erlang over traditional languages within that niche. Other niches are less likely to show such gains, IMO -- even theorem provers and compilers. A gain of 10:1 means that you could write in 5 weeks using OCaml what it would take you a year to write in C. I've used SML and C/C++ to write compilers, and I didn't see anything like that sort of improvement. Even if OCaml is more productive than SML, it still seems unlikely to me to reach a 10:1 improvement, at least for most people. I really think you should be careful when trumpeting productivity improvements. People have seen a lot of hype for various technologies, and are understandably sceptical. It's best if you can produce actual figures (this is hard, of course). >Visual Basic lives from a wealth of tailor-made libraries and development >tools for such applications. This is "application development" rather >than "programming". It's difficult to estimate productivity gains by >language features as long as libraries/tools do most of the job. You'd >have to be specific about what you actually want to measure. I don't think it's worthwhile to distinguish between "languages", "libraries" and "tools", when considering productivity. >Anyway, I'd be really surprised if my average productivity gain using >OCaml over Java on arbitrary projects were only 2:1. I am pretty sure >it would be higher than this. Doubling the factor seems quite realistic >to me. OK, I'll take that on board. Dave. ------------------- 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