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] OCaml compared as a scripting language
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@c...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml compared as a scripting language
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 06:15:35PM +0100, Richard Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 06:13:23PM +0200, wrote:
> > Anyway, all those language comparisons are always biased; is `program
> > length' a good measure of scripting capacity ?  It turns the
> > comparison into a shortest script challenge, doesn't it ?
> Actually it's not a bad measure.  One of the reasons I prefer Perl
> over Java, and OCaml over Perl, is verbosity.  On a scale of length of
> programs:
> OCaml < Perl <<<<<<< Java
> In fact I don't think I've ever seen anything as horribly verbose (and
> useless) as Java.  COBOL perhaps?

My experience has been that OCaml is a lot more verbose than Perl.  For
instance, to output an integer to a file, I'd have to do:

fprintf fd "%d\n" theint;


output_string fd ((string_of_int theint) ^ "\n");

print theint

print FD "$theint\n";

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