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 TAA30501; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:34:03 +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 TAA28708 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:34:02 +0200 (MET DST) X-SPAM-Warning: Sending machine is listed in blackholes.five-ten-sg.com Received: from heinrich.complete.org (gatekeeper.excelhustler.com [68.99.114.105]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5FHY1EV012315 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:34:01 +0200 Received: by heinrich.complete.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 60D212714; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:35:13 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:35:13 -0500 From: John Goerzen To: Richard Jones Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml compared as a scripting language Message-ID: <20040615173513.GB13863@complete.org> References: <20040614095216.GA8184@redhat.com> <20040614162907.GA17265@redhat.com> <40CE99EE.9030105@bik-gmbh.de> <200406151613.i5FGDN7k030987@waco.inria.fr> <20040615171535.GA14773@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040615171535.GA14773@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 40CF3309.000 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 2004:99 biased:01 verbosity:01 verbose:01 cobol:01 verbose:01 fprintf:01 python:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 int:01 0200,:01 comparison:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 06:15:35PM +0100, Richard Jones wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 06:13:23PM +0200, Bruno.Verlyck@inria.fr wrote: > > 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 ? > > Actually it's not a bad measure. One of the reasons I prefer Perl > over Java, and OCaml over Perl, is verbosity. On a scale of length of > programs: > > OCaml < Perl <<<<<<< Java > > In fact I don't think I've ever seen anything as horribly verbose (and > useless) as Java. COBOL perhaps? My experience has been that OCaml is a lot more verbose than Perl. For instance, to output an integer to a file, I'd have to do: fprintf fd "%d\n" theint; or output_string fd ((string_of_int theint) ^ "\n"); Python: print theint Perl: print FD "$theint\n"; ------------------- 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