Hi Ocaml's a fine alternative to Haskell, you could be 'forced' to use say PHP, now that wouldn't be quite so nice...
> For instance, I have heard that Ocaml is only fast when one uses loops > instead of folds, but I wonder if this is an overstatement. Maybe this notion is from the standard library not being optimized for long lists? http://ocaml.janestreet.com/?q=node/71 http://groups.google.com/group/fa.caml/msg/01e80aadf16837d6 There isn't much on performance in the O'Reilly book, but otherwise it is pretty comprehensive: http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/oreilly-book/ I suspect the difference between the ML module system vs. typeclasses will be as important as lazy vs. strict. As a style point, Ocaml programmers don't seem too prone to combinator mania - so I think golf is a bit less popular over there. One tip - sometimes you might see Ocaml code with the revised syntax (particularly Gerard Huet's work, which whilst described as 'Pidgin ML' is a subset of the Caml revised syntax) - this can be translated automatically to regular syntax with camlp4. Not knowing this tripped me up for a couple of days at the end of last year. Best wishes Stephen _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
