Browse thread
[Caml-list] OCaml compared as a scripting language
[
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: | Jon Harrop <jdh30@c...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] OCaml compared as a scripting language |
On Tuesday 15 June 2004 18:15, Richard Jones wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 06:13:23PM +0200, Bruno.Verlyck@inria.fr 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... This may be a crazy idea, but is there any formal work on automatically factoring higher-order functions out of OCaml programs? I'm thinking along the lines of a tool which could point out when your code is unnecessarily redundant and recommend a common function which could be factored out. This seems to be much more interesting in the presence of HOFs... The nearest thing I can think of is in-compiler optimisations like CSE. Cheers, Jon. ------------------- 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