On Thursday 24 September 2009 17:49:33 Richard Jones wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 02:09:56PM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote: > > Fair enough. I think this is the single most important development OCaml > > has seen since its inception so I would personally drop OCaml in favor of > > oc4mc even if it meant reverting to 3.10.2. > > I think 'personally' is the key word there. You forget that people > are quite happily programming in very slow languages like Perl, > Python, Ruby and Visual Basic,
Visual Basic has been a *lot* faster than OCaml for several years now, not least because it makes efficient multicore programming easy. Even Python is beating OCaml on benchmarks now: http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/f-vs-ocaml-vs-haskell-hash-table.html Even if that were not the case, the idea of cherry picking interpreted scripting languages to compete with because OCaml has fallen so far behind mainstream languages (let alone modern languages) is embarrassing. What's next, OCaml vs Bash for your high performance needs? > and those people vastly outnumber the ones using F#, Haskell, OCaml, SML > etc. (They don't even have static safety, dammit!). If you want to draw aspirations based upon popularity, look at the most popular languages: Java and C#. They are far more popular than OCaml for many reasons but parallel threads to make efficient multicore programming easy is a big one. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
