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 SAA29735; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:15:03 +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 SAA20192 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:15:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from waco.inria.fr (waco.inria.fr [128.93.25.2]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5FGDPEV003411; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:13:25 +0200 Received: from waco.inria.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waco.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5FGDPPU030988; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:13:25 +0200 Received: (from verlyck@localhost) by waco.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i5FGDN7k030987; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:13:23 +0200 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:13:23 +0200 Message-Id: <200406151613.i5FGDN7k030987@waco.inria.fr> To: hars@bik-gmbh.de CC: rich@annexia.org, caml-list@inria.fr In-reply-to: <40CE99EE.9030105@bik-gmbh.de> (hars@bik-gmbh.de) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml compared as a scripting language From: Bruno.Verlyck@inria.fr References: <20040614095216.GA8184@redhat.com> <20040614162907.GA17265@redhat.com> <40CE99EE.9030105@bik-gmbh.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 40CF2025.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 2004:99 florian:01 hars:01 hars:01 bik-gmbh:01 camlp:01 merd:01 sourceforge:01 biased:01 regexp:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 command:98 it'd:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:40:46 +0200 From: Florian Hars Richard Jones wrote: > I think it'd be possible to assemble a very capable scripting > language without affecting the core language at all. Isn't this what cash is about (minus the regexp stuff and the camlp4 sugar)? Yes, that was my intent. http://pauillac.inria.fr/cash/ Thanks for the hype! Now that I'm at it... On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Richard Jones wrote: > It may interest people to know that OCaml was compared to other computer > languages for scripting: > http://merd.sourceforge.net/pixel/language-study/scripting-language/ > It comes out somewhere in the middle. Of course Cash would score somewhat higher than OCaml, if only because it can get the script on the command line :-). Anyway, all those language comparisons are always biased; is `program length' a good measure of scripting capacity ? It turns the comparison into a shortest script challenge, doesn't it ? Bruno. ------------------- 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