From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA485BBBB for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:01:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k24I1SeH003172 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:01:28 +0100 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA07254 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:01:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from chip.uscs.susx.ac.uk (chip.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.86]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k24I1Rcw003800 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:01:27 +0100 Received: from cpc1-brig7-3-0-cust74.brig.cable.ntl.com ([82.4.141.74]:36533) by chip.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.43) id IVM7J3-000JDL-7A for caml-list@inria.fr; Sat, 04 Mar 2006 18:04:15 +0000 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Benchmarks against imperative languages From: David Teller To: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <20060304143608.GA16996@ours.starynkevitch.net> References: <20060304143608.GA16996@ours.starynkevitch.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 18:01:25 +0000 Message-Id: <1141495285.5303.20.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.2.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 4409D5F8.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4409D5F7.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ens-lyon:01 basile:01 ocaml:01 kloc:01 ocaml:01 gcc:01 jocaml:01 cheers:01 wrote:01 imperative:01 implemented:02 paradigms:02 objects:02 limitations:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 Le samedi 04 mars 2006 =C3=A0 15:36 +0100, Basile STARYNKEVITCH a =C3=A9cri= t : > Le Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 02:04:44PM +0000, Sarah Mount =C3=A9crivait/wrote= : > A real answer would be to have a team of programmers fluent in Ocaml > write a code (an real-sized application of hundreds of KLOC of source > code, representing several man-years of effort) which has exactly the > same precise specification than an existing code written in C. But > this will never happen (it is too costly but quite useless an > experiment). For example, nobody will recode in Ocaml an exact clone > of gcc-4.1, firefox-1.5, or mysql-5.0! Unfortunately... I don't know about MySQL, but both gcc and Firefox are applications which shouldn't have been written in C/C++ in the first place and which spend more LOC emulating other paradigms (respectively ML/lisp-style and Objective-C/Python-style) than actually doing anything else -- in the case of Firefox, my experience is that at least 2/3 of the code is just the application of the dynamic objects layer.=20 I actually think that exactly replicating an application would yield any benefits, as applications are typically designed to be implemented in one specific language, and around the limitations of this language. On the other hand, I would consider it interesting to plan and implement an independent large-scale end-user-oriented open-source project in OCaml. The question being, of course "what kind of application" ? I'm not sure that OCaml is the best language for end-user-oriented applications, but I'd like to be proved wrong. On the third hand (yeah, Chernobyl), I think that the Next Big Thing in language is distribution, not a new paradigm or a new take on an old paradigm. OCaml itself is not that Next Big Thing. JoCaml could be, or perhaps Acute. Cheers, David --=20 Read, Write, and Publish Standard eBooks Free, Open Software, Open Standards and multi-platform The OpenBerg project http://www.openberg.org