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