From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id VAA12224; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:52:40 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA11796 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:52:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hickory.cc.columbia.edu (hickory.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.202]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g68JqcP22013 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:52:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from there (tw304h3.cpmc.columbia.edu [156.111.84.180]) by hickory.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA28813 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:52:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200207081952.PAA28813@hickory.cc.columbia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Oleg To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: [Caml-list] productivity improvement Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:53:26 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi As part of learning O'Caml I was rewriting small personal utility programs from C++ to O'Caml and I have not seen any productivity improvement so far. Possibly, this is because I essentially use the same imperative style or because my knowledge of O'Caml is rudimental or because there is no productivity enhancement, at least for the programs I was translating or for small programs in general. What are the _simplest_ examples that demonstrate considerable (> 2:1) O'Caml vs C++ productivity improvement (in terms of program size) and where can I find them? Thanks Oleg P.S. Just trying to stay motivated. ------------------- 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