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: | 2004-06-15 (16:15) |
From: | Bruno.Verlyck@i... |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] OCaml compared as a scripting language |
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:40:46 +0200 From: Florian Hars <hars@bik-gmbh.de> Richard Jones wrote: > I think it'd be possible to assemble a very capable scripting > language without affecting the core language at all. Isn't this what cash is about (minus the regexp stuff and the camlp4 sugar)? Yes, that was my intent. http://pauillac.inria.fr/cash/ Thanks for the hype! Now that I'm at it... On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Richard Jones wrote: > It may interest people to know that OCaml was compared to other computer > languages for scripting: > http://merd.sourceforge.net/pixel/language-study/scripting-language/ > It comes out somewhere in the middle. Of course Cash would score somewhat higher than OCaml, if only because it can get the script on the command line :-). 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 ? Bruno. ------------------- 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