From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5922FBB9A for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 01:18:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pih-relay06.plus.net (pih-relay06.plus.net [212.159.14.133]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j94NIdIP011698 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 01:18:39 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=chetara) by pih-relay06.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1EMw3S-0002Rf-6S for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:18:38 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: FP/IP and performance (in general) and Patterns... (Re: [Caml-list] Avoiding shared data) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 00:14:52 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <20051003200337.14092.qmail@web26809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <20051004164700.GA494@first.in-berlin.de> <8008871f0510041539r1d2b242fifcd09cf32ba394fa@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8008871f0510041539r1d2b242fifcd09cf32ba394fa@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200510050014.52502.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43430DCF.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 avoiding:01 ocaml:01 oliver:01 ocaml:01 ocaml's:01 ...:98 frog:98 wrote:01 imperative:01 patterns:02 patterns:02 data:02 data:02 caml:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Tuesday 04 October 2005 23:39, Christopher A. Watford wrote: > This list is best for asking OCaml questions and is awful for asking > for what language is best for what, nobody agrees. Oliver was asking which of three programming paradigms is best under different circumstances. OCaml provides all three so I think this can be taken as an OCaml-specific question and is fine for this list. I for one would be very interested in reading information on this. I'll check out the design patterns paper - thanks Michael. My impression is that: 1. Data structure heavy code is often easier to write in a functional style. See the "n"th-nearest neighbour example from my book: http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/complete/ 2. GUI code is more easily written with a stateful imperative front and often a functional back end. I have yet to really exploit OCaml's OO capabilities. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. Objective CAML for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists