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 OAA25382; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:59:10 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 OAA25379 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:59:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g6CCx3f26486; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:59:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA25370; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:59:03 +0200 (MET DST) From: Pierre Weis Message-Id: <200207121259.OAA25370@pauillac.inria.fr> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: productivity improvement In-Reply-To: <20020712114311.GD684@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> from Markus Mottl at "Jul 12, 102 01:43:11 pm" To: markus@oefai.at (Markus Mottl) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:59:03 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com, caml-list@inria.fr X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi Markus, [...] > Insurance = costs. Furthermore, 1:100 sounds quite a bit too > astronomical. I'd say that depending on the kind of the problem 1:3 > to 1:10 is reasonable and fits well to the experience of others. E.g., > the Erlang developers also report productivity gains in this range on > large-scale commercial projects. OCaml will most likely have similar > ratios. I completely agree with you on those, somewhat impossible to obtain and prove, productivity ratio gains. 1:3 to 1:10 is reasonable. However, an interesting ratio seems to be forgotten in the discussion: infinity :) I mean, I know a lot of problems that could simply not have been solved in any other language, and in this casess we observe this extreme limit ratio. No flame, please: I know that SML or Haskell could do roughly speaking the same as Caml could do for the programmer, I also know that once the program has been written and is fairly stable you can rewrite it in any other language you want, even C++ or Java, provided you have enough time and money. I also do know that there are a lot of situations where you do not have enough time and/or money... Regards, Pierre Weis INRIA, Projet Cristal, Pierre.Weis@inria.fr, http://pauillac.inria.fr/~weis/ ------------------- 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