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] Great Programming Language Shootout Revived
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Yaron Minsky <yminsky@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Great Programming Language Shootout Revived
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:05:12 -0500 (CDT), Brian Hurt <> wrote:

> What's starting to happen, now that the project has started up again, is
> advocates/supporters of other languages have started to submit improved
> versions of the code for their languages.  For example, I notice that
> Ocaml has dropped from it's #1 place in least lines of code to #2, with
> Ruby taking the lead.

For what it's worth, the ocaml line-counts in the shootout are
particularly bogus.  There are lots of examples where the ocaml code
does things like putting entire for loops (or even nested for loops!)
on a single line.  Here's an example:

let _ =
  let n = if Array.length Sys.argv > 1 then int_of_string Sys.argv.(1) else 1 in
  let lix = n - 1 and x = Array.make n 0 and y = Array.make n 0 in
  for i = 0 to lix do x.(i) <- i + 1 done;
  for k = 0 to 999 do for i = lix downto 0 do y.(i) <- x.(i) + y.(i) done done;
  Printf.printf "%d %d\n" y.(0) y.(lix)

The code is perfectly reasonable, but it would be a hell of a lot more
readable and idiomatic if it was on 16 lines instead of 6.  The other
languages in the shootout appear to engage in less of this tomfoolery.
 Personally, I think the ocaml entries should be fixed to have more
lines of code.  As it is, the examples make ocaml look much more
obscure that it is.


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