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] Easy solution in OCaml?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-04-29 (06:18)
From: John Max Skaller <skaller@o...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Easy solution in OCaml?
Siegfried Gonzi wrote:

> This also  leads to the question: is development time really reduced in 
> (strict typed) functional programming, or is it only reduced when you 
> compare quicksort in Haskell and the verbose version in C.

It depends on the kind of project AND what 

you mean by "development time". I'd include

everything needed to be confident the result
was correct.

Two projects -- in Python
(A literate programming tool) -- in Ocaml
(A compiler for an algol-like language)

Interscript verges on unmaintainability.
Lightweight OO style without static typing.

Felix is relatively easy to extend despite
being considerably more complex. The implementation
is procedural at the top level with heavy use
of functional programming (mainly pure with memoisation)
for computations.

I shudder in horror at the idea of rewriting Felix
in C++. The loss of basic functional stuff like
closures and functional mapping (as well as variants)
would make a difficult project unmanageable .. and
that's just translating it, forget about new development.

SO my answer is: Ocaml provides an excellent blend of
both procedural and functional styles that make
development of moderate sized projects very efficient.
[moderate = 10K to 10M LOC]. I write small things
in Python and try to avoid C++ unless I can generate it
(despite being a member of the ISO committee standardising it).

John Max Skaller,
snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.

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