English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
Teaching bottomline, part 3: what should improve.
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2007-05-24 (14:24)
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:


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:


> 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