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

[ 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.


>   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,
snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.

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