Browse thread
Teaching bottomline, part 3: what should improve.
[
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 <jon@f...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Teaching bottomline, part 3: what should improve. |
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 21:20:57 David Teller wrote: > On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 00:39 +0100, Jon Harrop wrote: > > Fascinating. Thanks for reporting the information. If I might be so brash > > as to comment on the problems you had that have already been fixed by F#: > > I mentioned F# to them, by the way. Somewhere along the lines of "It looks > good, it might be the future, unfortunately, at the moment, you need > Windows and 400€ worth of Visual Studio to try it". This blog entry implies that F# works with free editions of Visual Studio: http://grammerjack.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F2629C772A178A7C!156.entry I'll try F# on a machine without the commercial Visual Studio ASAP and see if I can get it working. > So far, I have no budget, and Windows. Could they boot the machines into Linux at the start of each lecture? > Can I get this graphical throwback without VS ? I do not believe so although there are some free IDEs: http://sourceforge.net/projects/sharpedit/ > Div and mod ? How so ? Div and mod by constants are not optimized by the OCaml compiler, which can lead to pathological performance on some programs (e.g. sieve, sudoku). > Plus I tend to believe that the OCaml-style future looks more like > JoCaml (or Acute, or Oz, or Erlang) than like semaphores. Except for Erlang, none of those languages have a significant number of users today. I haven't tried Erlang but it may be worth a look. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. The F#.NET Journal http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?e