Browse thread
[Caml-list] Is Caml a fraud ( especially on Windows )?
[
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: | Joaquin Cuenca Abela <e98cuenc@y...> |
| Subject: | [Caml-list] Re: "ocaml_beginners"::[] Is Caml a fraud ( especially on Windows )? |
--- olczyk@interaccess.com wrote: > > So when I hear developers saying that their language > is the best I > imediately begin to wonder about it's deficiencies > are. You will have a hard time looking for a language developer that don't states that its language is the best one. Stroustup prefers C++ to any other language for most tasks, Ritchie said that if he was only allowed to keep one language on a desert island, it will be C, etc. It's not a shock to me to discover that Caml creators prefer Caml over other languages... > The second incident involves ocamlc and cameleon. > Trying to get > cameleon to compile ( more on that later ), I > discovered that ocamlc > called cl.exe ( MS C/C++ compiler ). The reason is > obvious. ocamlc > translates ocaml to c and then passes it to the > compiler. ? From what I know, ocamlc only calls cl.exe to compile C code. That's, if you do: ocamlc test.c and test.c is a C program, then it will compile it using (surprise) a C compiler. That's all. It compiles itself Caml code. > This creates > two things I have difficulties with: > > 1) There is from the main caml page a link to a page > where the person > claims to have benchmarked C vs caml and caml > wins. I had several > > problems with that page, ( The main one, he > uses goto's to > optimise his code. The problem is that the > optimiser in a C > compiler has a much harder time with goto's > present [ they are > nonlocal branches ]. So I have to trust he does > a better job at > optimisation than the compiler would do. Yeah > sure. ) performance tests are almost always crap. Specially language related ones. To me the only important thing is that Caml creates programs that run at an acceptable speed, that's all. > 2) After a bit of thought I realised something. If > the compiler > generates C code which gets compiled, then odds > are that the > debugger is a wrapper of gdb. Big problems on Dude, you seem to have done a false assumption, and then you're building a big chain of false deductions (and at the same time, you're insulting Caml developers). The debugger is not a wrapper of gdb. And it's one of the best debuggers that I've had the pleasure to use. Some months ago I was doing a little project for the university. I first did it in perl, and then I tried to do it in Caml (I wanted to learn a bit of Caml). The final Caml version was half in size than the perl version, and the debugger has a hell of help when I need it. Specially the possibility to *go back* in the program flow was a life-safer (why this feature does not appears in big bold letters in the main ocaml page?). I'm not member of a Caml fan club or something, but when I'm learning a new language (and I try to do that as regularly as possible), I always keep in mind two things: 1) I'm a newbie. If something is going bad, it's probably my fault. 2) Don't insult people that try to help. You're welcome to dislike Caml, but don't flame others' work in the process. Cheers, ===== Joaquin Cuenca Abela e98cuenc@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.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