Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] Rule based language [was: productivity improvement]
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ 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