On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 05:55:02AM -0800, Dario Teixeira wrote: > Hi, > > > I am on the fence about whether to learn OCaml or not, and while > > reading an article called "Why OCaml" > > (http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Software/Ocaml/why_ocaml.html), > > I saw that OCaml was praised for the speed of the executables it > > generates - and was referred to, speed-wise, as "second to none", > > except C and C++. > > Yes, Ocaml is fast (more on that later), but you should consider speed > as just the icing in the cake. [...]
But if it were not performant enough, I (and many others too, I think) would consider it being a nice toy language. AFAIK in the past, functional langauges were not adapted, because they were very unperformant - at least this is one reason. Another reason might be, that the available functional languages in the past were overloaded with parenthess ;) Ciao, Oliver _______________________________________________ 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
