Browse thread
[Caml-list] Caml productivity.
[
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: | John Max Skaller <skaller@o...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Caml productivity. |
Chris Hecker wrote: > > My point is that 3x is simply HUGE for a commercial programming effort. Yes. > It's easily big enough to overcome inertia and make people switch, > even if they had a year of downtime...heck, you could make up that > year in 4 months, and then the rest of your ship cycle would happen at > 3x the rate! If people could consistently get anywhere close to 3x on > most programs then everybody would switch quickly. Sorry. No. You're wrong. People use C, when C++ is unequivocably superior in almost every way. Why? [Example: Ocaml. Python. Gtk. Etc Etc. Why are all these fools using C instead of C++? Perhaps they're not fools after all?] I think you underestimate 'inertia'. It is worthwhile to consider that being conservative does have some advantages. Note also: *business productivity* is more closely related to predictable performance. Even predictable low performance of programmers is very attractive compared to risk taking. -- John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@ozemail.com.au snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia. voice:61-2-9660-0850 ------------------- 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