Browse thread
OCaml troll on Slashdot
-
Karl Zilles
-
Oliver Bandel
-
Michael Vanier
-
Jon Harrop
-
Yoann Padioleau
- Jon Harrop
- Paul Argentoff
- Paul Argentoff
-
Yoann Padioleau
-
Jon Harrop
- Yoann Padioleau
-
Michael Vanier
- Richard Jones
-
Oliver Bandel
[
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: | brogoff <brogoff@s...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] OCaml troll on Slashdot |
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote: > It's not the fault of the mapping function but of the stack being > non-extensible. A user-written recursion can blow it too. Functional > programming is supposed to encourage recursion, and a non-tail-recursive > 'map' is much more readable than alternatives. Interesting approach. Do you have any information as to how big the performance hit is? I've never used SML/NJ except for a few toy programs, but I recall that it puts activation records on the Gc'ed heap (correct me if I'm wrong someone) so that call/cc is more efficient, so stack overflows shouldn't be a problem there either. Could you comment on why you chose extensible stacks rather than the SMLNJ approach for Kogut. > My implementation of my language Kogut has extensible stack. > And transparent bignums when appropriate. Yes, it's slower, > but correctness is more important. Hard to disagree when you put it that way, but there you seem to be posing a false dichotomy. With enough work, C code can be made safe. What I think you intend is that you'd rather it be easy to write safe code than that it be asy to write fast code, in the language. I wouldn't mind that, as long as it isn't ridiculously hard or impossible to do the latter in the language. -- Brian