On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Alexy Khrabrov wrote:
I wonder if that's another reason OCaml is used in a(t least one)
hedge fund -- why Jane St. preferred OCaml to Haskell, I wonder? Was
it the state of affairs then that OCaml was more efficient (? --
WAGuess), and would they prefer Haskell now? I'm tr
I particularly like OCaml's provision of subtyping. As a member of
the ML family, it's module system is also quite formidable. Of course
the imperative constructs are also pretty convenient when you just
want to be quirky. But I miss the monad do-notation.
___
Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
Great! what are constrains on [begin..end] could they be some type
which supports (+) , but not Int.
Anything in the Enum class (so it doesn't even have to support (+)).
Many things are in the Enum class.
Last question is: Does creation of list of functions humpers p
Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
> >Could you give an example of a loop you find awkward in Haskell?
>
> Well I want simple loop for(int i =0;i<10;++i)doSomething(i);
mapM_ doSomething [0..9]
--
Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___
Haskell-Cafe
Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
Well I want simple loop for(int i =0;i<10;++i)doSomething(i);
in haskell that would be
for begin end f | begin /= end = do {f begin ; for (begin+1) end f}
| otherwise = return ()
How about:
result = [ doSomething(i) | i <- [0..9] ]
I guess it depend
On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 11:09:51AM +, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
> >Or just 'mapM_ doSomething [1..10]' (:
>
> Neet! However would it be more efficient for, say, 1 million iterations?
> Anyway I have to look for map functions. I'm learning step by step
> from tutorials :)
I remember I was imp
From: Lemmih <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Branimir Maksimovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Haskell vs OCaml
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 11:43:56 +0100
On 12/25/05, Branimir Maksimovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
From: Matt Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Branimir Maksimovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Haskell vs OCaml
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 21:42:35 +1100
Perhaps something like
for :: Int -> Int -> (Int ->
On 12/25/05, Branimir Maksimovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >From: Lennart Augustsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: Branimir Maksimovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> >Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe]
TECTED]>
To: Branimir Maksimovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Haskell vs OCaml
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 10:25:44 +0100
Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
I've found that Haskell is pretty good in implementing recursive
algorithms
From: Lennart Augustsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Branimir Maksimovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Haskell vs OCaml
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 10:25:44 +0100
Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
I've found that Haskell
Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
I've found that Haskell is pretty good in implementing recursive
algorithms.
Problem cames when one want's to implement non recursive algorithm
by terms of recursion as Haskell does not support loops.
Perhaps if we can get loops, situation will improve, but then that
w
From: Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Haskell vs OCaml
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 20:07:00 +
Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
When it comes to Haskell, speed is mostly an implementation issue.
I just took another look at th
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 03:11:06PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> >There are many differences (Haskell on the left):
> >- pure / impure
>
> Let's see if I understand this one. Haskell and OCaml both treat
> functions as first class objects, including the ability to pass
Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
When it comes to Haskell, speed is mostly an implementation issue.
I just took another look at this. By "implementation issue" do you mean
the person who implements the compiler or the program being compiled? If
the latter... other emails here suggest that writing an ef
Quoth Tomasz Zielonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
| There are many differences (Haskell on the left):
Might also mention foreign (C) function interface (FFI.) ocaml's is
I would say average, but ghc's is outstanding, really a different
level of support altogether.
With regard to the syntax - aside
Hal Daume III wrote:
That said, I use O'Caml for all of my non-Perl coding. Why? ...
Second, lack of loop support,
Lack of loop support? You mean like while loops and for loops? This
suggests that some problems are easier to solve with loops than using
lists and recursion.
(Of course, w
Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
When it comes to Haskell, speed is mostly an implementation issue.
Of course, there are many problems with making Haskell programs
run fast, but on the other hand there are also many opportunities.
For example recent developments of GHC promise that Haskell will
be one of t
It would be very instructive to know the story behind LexiFi's
decision to use OCAML for their implementation. The original work
was done in Haskell and seemed to take good advantage of lazy
evaluation. Does anybody know this story?
http://www.lexifi.com/
http://www.lexifi.com/Downloads
Hal,
What is the syntactic sugar that you are lacking with arrays?
Also, do loops matter if they can be emulated with recursion?
Thanks, Joel
On Dec 24, 2005, at 12:46 AM, Hal Daume III wrote:
That said, I use O'Caml for all of my non-Perl coding. Why?
Because I
need lots of arra
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 12:35:21AM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Now that I sort of understand Haskell, I was hoping someone could give
> me an opinion on OCaml from a Haskell POV. Both are functional and have
> fairly clear syntax. OCaml is supposed to be very fast, and Haskell
> perhaps is no
You'll probably get a lot of different answers. I think the major
difference is the notion of encapsulation used by each. Haskell has type
classes and O'Caml has structures/functors and (OO) classes. I personally
find type class much nicer. Additionally, I think Haskell's syntax is
easier o
Hi all,
Okay, I've been studying Haskell for a few days and I think I have a
feel for the language. I completted a course, and wrote a Revers Polish
Notation calculator.
Now that I sort of understand Haskell, I was hoping someone could give
me an opinion on OCaml from a Haskell POV. Both are
My friend, you just proved that I only have but the fuzziest idea of
what functional programming is. :-)
Thanks for the info. I'll figure this out eventually.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcin,
Are you sure that OCaml is similar to
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marcin,
>
> Are you sure that OCaml is similar to Haskell? At first glance, it
> doesn't even look functional. It looks like an imperative language.
It's not purely functional, but it supports algebraic types and
first-class functions, uses similar con
On 5/3/05, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marcin,
>
> Are you sure that OCaml is similar to Haskell? At first glance, it
> doesn't even look functional. It looks like an imperative language.
>
It is functional, but it's not pure (ie it allows side effects) and
doesn't have as nice s
Marcin,
Are you sure that OCaml is similar to Haskell? At first glance, it
doesn't even look functional. It looks like an imperative language.
Cheers,
Daniel.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo
Hey,
Marcin just mentioned OCaml as another functional programming language I
should keep in mind.
Can anyone offer an opinion on how Haskell and OCaml compare? Is OCaml
as easy to learn as Haskell? Does it have much the same virtues?
I'll go take a look at it.
/daniel goes to Google.
Cheers,
D
28 matches
Mail list logo
