Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] Rule based language [was: productivity improvement]
- artboreb@n...
[
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: | artboreb@n... |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Rule based language [was: productivity improvement] |
Oleg <oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com> wrote: >On Sunday 21 July 2002 09:00 am, Alessandro Baretta wrote: >> Oleg wrote: >> > Alex, >> > >> > This looks pretty simple. What makes you think the program is a >> > compelling evidence of O'Caml superior productivity? >> >> 197 lines of code, including whitespace and commments. I >> think it is a pretty clear example of how you can write cool >> software in O'Caml in a very short time. If you had not been >> "lazy", as you said, and had tried implementing the same >> language in C++, I strongly doubt you could have written a >> more compact source. > > >109 LOC in C++ counting blank lines and lines containing a single '}'. See >atttached files. > >A few notes about the differences between your O'Caml program and my C++ >program: > >1) I'm not using Yacc or Lex for parsing, because I'm not familiar with these >tools, so ugly parsing takes up most of those 109 LOC (Parsing things is >peripheral to my professional interests right now. I don't write compilers) > >2) I decided not to implement the "simple" keyword, because I did not >understand what it was supposed to mean (a depth limit on deduction, I'm >guessing, but what for?) > >3) Your program fails to imlement multi-token post-conditions in rules and >mutli-token goals (as described in your formal language specification) > >4) The algorithms are different I think, resulting in, for example, about >200x speed improvement for the attached test.input file on my P3-800MHz >(g++-3.0 vs ocamlopt) (The output is identical). The O'Caml program >convergence seems to be quite unstable. Sometimes it is as fast or even >faster than the C++ program. > >I can see how the same algorithm can be implemented in ~100 LOC of O'Caml >too. However, IMO as this and the previous examples show, reports about >extreme LOC ratios are premature. > >Cheers, >Oleg > Nice Oleg!. Can I participate in this challenge? I have yet build your parser in 25 lines of OCaml and seems to run as fast as yours. Perhaps in a couple of days I'll post my solution as I have very few spare time. -- Arturo Borquez __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ ------------------- 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