[Caml-list] Re: "ocaml_beginners"::[] Is Caml a fraud ( especially on Windows )?

[olczyk@interaccess.com (Thaddeus L. Olczyk)]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:44:55 -0700 (PDT), Joaquin Cuenca Abela
<e98cuenc@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>--- olczyk@interaccess.com wrote:
>>
>> So when I hear developers saying that their language
>> is the best I
>> imediately begin to wonder about it's deficiencies
>> are.
>
>You will have a hard time looking for a language
>developer that don't states that its language is the
>best one.
>
>Stroustup prefers C++ to any other language for most
>tasks, Ritchie said that if he was only allowed to
>keep one language on a desert island, it will be C,
>etc.
>
And Pierre  Weis says that I shouldn't call people liars, but when
I see a post like this...

There is a big difference between saying " if I could only use one
language it would be C", and saying "C is the best language".

Stroustrup has said  and continues to say that he refuses to get
into the debate about what the best language is. Last I looked it
was the stated on the FAQ on his web page. 
>
>? From what I know, ocamlc only calls cl.exe to
>compile C code.  That's, if you do:
>
>ocamlc test.c
>
>and test.c is a C program, then it will compile it
>using (surprise) a C compiler.  That's all.  It
>compiles itself Caml code.
>
Uhmmm. If you look at the line of the build that I have posted,
there are no C or C++ source files in the compile that uses
cl.exe.

>performance tests are almost always crap.  Specially
>language related ones.  To me the only important thing
>is that Caml creates programs that run at an
>acceptable speed, that's all.
> 
Indeed. As I pointed out the guy who did the test is
not exactly the person I would want to write efficient C code.
Which is usually why such preformance tests comparing
two languages suck. The person is either an expert in one
language and lacking in the other.


>
>Dude, you seem to have done a false assumption, and
>then you're building a big chain of false deductions
>(and at the same time, you're insulting Caml
>developers).
>
>The debugger is not a wrapper of gdb.  And it's one of
>the best debuggers that I've had the pleasure to use.
>Some months ago I was doing a little project for the
>university.
>
>I first did it in perl, and then I tried to do it in
>Caml (I wanted to learn a bit of Caml).  The final
>Caml version was half in size than the perl version,
>and the debugger has a hell of help when I need it. 
>Specially the possibility to *go back* in the program
>flow was a life-safer (why this feature does not
>appears in big bold letters in the main ocaml page?).
>
Actually this is the perfect example of the kind of tunnel
vision that those clueless exhibit. (With the caveat that I have
not yet used the debugger, so go by what I read, and not the actual
feel) CL/Scheme and Smalltalk both have debuggers with this 
feature ( I also suspect that Dylan has it too ) and they have had
it for a *long. long time* , predating OCaml ( almost predating ML
as an implemented language).

In fact both languages have another feature which AFAIK OCaml does
not. They both support core/images, which allow you to checkpoint 
a run and restart "close to the bug" even when you've pushed the go
back feature to much.

>I'm not member of a Caml fan club or something, but
>when I'm learning a new language (and I try to do that
>as regularly as possible), I always keep in mind two
>things:
>
>1) I'm a newbie.  If something is going bad, it's
>probably my fault.
>2) Don't insult people that try to help.
>
I don't read the C/C++ Users Journal much any more. But I still
get it and read the editorials.
Today the next one arrived with this comment:
"If you're like me, you tire easily of hype machines that cry wolf
about this or that whiz-bang tool."
-------------------
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