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 MAA14980; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:05:54 +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 MAA15010 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:05:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from tor.abc.se (ns.abc.se [195.17.72.11]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f58A5qL15133 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:05:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from gateway (dialup-73 [195.17.73.73]) by tor.abc.se (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA13599; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:05:47 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Mattias Waldau" To: Cc: , "Jonathan Coupe" Subject: Why is Ocaml better than Java (WAS: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:05:43 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20010608024102.A13672@jean> Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > How much time and money do development teams spend creating and tracking > down memory management errors in C and C++ starting on day one? At least > some of the benefits are immediate and ongoing. Why this obsession comparing Ocaml with C/C++? C/C++ isn't used out there except for Linux-development, low-level programming and embedded development. No one writes applications using C/C++, they use Java, Visual Basic. Some open source developers use Python, PHP and similar. Some use Fortran and Delphi. Talking about memory management with a programmer using anything else than C/C++ is a waste of time. The real questions is how to convince a Java-programmer to start using Ocaml. The arguments I can list is: - speed - polymorphism, no casting needed (will be solved in next generation of Java, so this argument will disappear) - closures (however can always be programmed using local class with ()-method) - better typechecking makes higher order functions simple to use (however, I think that a local class in Java will be as good) - compact programs (Java programs are very long) - easy integration with C (easy in VB, I haven't tried it in Java) Plz help me with more arguments /mattias ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr