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 MAA24889; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:34:50 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id MAA24878 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:34:48 +0200 (MET DST) 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 KAA21374 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:42:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail.interaktif.net.tr ([62.248.102.120]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9F8go520714 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:42:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from abn166-176.ank-avrupa-ports.kablonet.net.tr (unknown [195.174.166.176]) by mail.interaktif.net.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00661E697; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:39:47 +0300 (EEST) From: Eray Ozkural Organization: Bilkent University CS Dept. To: Dave Berry , Markus Mottl , Oleg Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: productivity improvement Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:38:58 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.5 Cc: OCaml References: <200207121133.HAA26986@dewberry.cc.columbia.edu> <4.1.20020714213245.00a37f00@pop3.btclick.com> In-Reply-To: <4.1.20020714213245.00a37f00@pop3.btclick.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200210151138.58478.erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr> Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sunday 14 July 2002 23:44, Dave Berry wrote: > As a commercial manager, I've seen a productivity improvement of about 50% > using Java over C++ -- mainly arising from automatic memory management, and > a slightly cleaner language. I would expect OCaml to have that 50%, and > perhaps another for a more expressive type system, making 2:1. For some > problems, e.g. compilers, the increase might be more, say 3:1 or 4:1. For > comparison, this is also the productivity improvement I'd expect to see > using Visual Basic over C/C++ for small GUI/Database problems. I'd expect a much higher ratio for compilers or any form of symbolic computation. Having went through a few C++ compilers recently I would say more than 1:10. The problem is that I don't have a C++ compiler written in ocaml in front of me, so that's just a guess ;) However, compilers for languages with more complex semantics (like Haskell) seems to be achievable in the magnitude of a few ten thousands of lines while your casual Mono compiler took some 10^6 lines in C if you will remember. That ratio would be something like 1:30, 1:40 against C, and I suspect it would still be 1:10 to 1:20 for C++. For a C++ compiler, the ratio would be about the same since C++ has simpler semantics but a more involved syntax than well designed languages. Hence more code for syntax, less code for semantics in the case of C++ probably making the compiler as complex as Haskell. That ratio would wildly change with respect to design of the compiler of course. There are lots of choices even in the simplest matters. Not to mention the need for a good programmer. A bad programmer can eventually manage to blow up the code size worse than a good C++ implementation ;) Just a rough comparison, -- Eray Ozkural Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C ------------------- 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