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 LAA24906; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:37:54 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA24764 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:37:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from shiva.jussieu.fr (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.129]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9H9bq511487 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:37:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ibm3.cicrp.jussieu.fr (ibm3.cicrp.jussieu.fr [134.157.15.3]) by shiva.jussieu.fr (8.12.5/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id g9H9a7jR006017 ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:36:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ibm1.cicrp.jussieu.fr (ibm1.cicrp.jussieu.fr [134.157.15.1]) by ibm3.cicrp.jussieu.fr (8.8.8/jtpda/mob-V8) with ESMTP id LAA42156 ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:34:29 +0200 Received: from localhost (fernande@localhost) by ibm1.cicrp.jussieu.fr (8.8.8/jtpda/mob-v8) with ESMTP id LAA1482756 ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:34:04 +0200 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:34:04 +0200 (DST) From: Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons To: Eray Ozkural cc: Caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] productivity improvement In-Reply-To: <200210170312.27133.erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Antivirus: scanned by sophie at shiva.jussieu.fr Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Bonjour, I do not understand very well why are you arguing, or is there anyone in this list who is not convinced that Caml (and functional languages) are more suited for any complex work than C/C++ (and other imperative languages) ? > Sorry, but I can't afford my code to look anywhere similar to STL. > Using the standard lib for those data structures and algorithms may > be okay, but writing something like STL itself is a big NO-NO. When I wrote Baire, I read a lot of data structures and algorithms code in other languages (C, C++, Java, SML, Haskell, Lisp, Scheme). Compared with all those libraries, Baire is : - much more complex (more algorithms and data structures) - cleaner - smaller - easier to maintain and debug It is faster than Java, SML, Haskell, Lisp and Scheme librairies (since Caml is faster than all these languages and Baire uses same or better algorithms), and we have good reasons to believe that it is at least as fast as C++ code when you choose a data structure more suited to the data you are manipulating (which Baire offers but STL/LEDA does not) Moreover, I wrote it in a few month and did it alone Finally, Baire has not yet said its last word since it is only a pre-release Does anyone need more evidence ? > Here is one for you: write a general purpose parallel array library with > syntax similar to that of blitz, should implement efficient parallel > algorithms for a large class of topologies. That was the project which led me > to conclude that C++ was *not* fitting for generic programming.... C++ in not fitting for any kind of programming and there is no need of such a specific application to demostrate it. Diego Olivier ------------------- 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