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 SAA32040; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 18:42:22 +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 SAA32031 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 18:42:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (fichte.ai.univie.ac.at [131.130.174.156]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g6CGgKj01879; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 18:42:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from markus@localhost) by fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) id SAA03667; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 18:42:19 +0200 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 18:42:19 +0200 From: Markus Mottl To: Pierre Weis Cc: oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com, caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: productivity improvement Message-ID: <20020712164219.GG684@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> Mail-Followup-To: Pierre Weis , oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com, caml-list@inria.fr References: <20020712114311.GD684@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> <200207121259.OAA25370@pauillac.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <200207121259.OAA25370@pauillac.inria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Pierre Weis wrote: > I completely agree with you on those, somewhat impossible to obtain and > prove, productivity ratio gains. 1:3 to 1:10 is reasonable. >=20 > However, an interesting ratio seems to be forgotten in the discussion: > infinity :) >=20 > 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. Well, this is a simple consequence of us humans having finite brains (though some hack=08=08=08=08programmers don't believe that ;) Even if FPLs reduce complexity only slightly, this implies that there must be previously insoluble problems that become solvable by their application. > 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... Right, as soon as there are constraints (scarce resources), economical thinking demands more efficient tools (languages). Regards, Markus --=20 Markus Mottl markus@oefai.at Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.oefai.at/~markus ------------------- 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