Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: "ocaml_beginners"::[] Is Caml a fraud ( especially on Windows )?

Expand Messages
  • Joaquin Cuenca Abela
    ... You will have a hard time looking for a language developer that don t states that its language is the best one. Stroustup prefers C++ to any other language
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 18, 2002
      --- olczyk@... wrote:
      >
      > So when I hear developers saying that their language
      > is the best I
      > imediately begin to wonder about it's deficiencies
      > are.

      You will have a hard time looking for a language
      developer that don't states that its language is the
      best one.

      Stroustup prefers C++ to any other language for most
      tasks, Ritchie said that if he was only allowed to
      keep one language on a desert island, it will be C,
      etc.

      It's not a shock to me to discover that Caml creators
      prefer Caml over other languages...

      > The second incident involves ocamlc and cameleon.
      > Trying to get
      > cameleon to compile ( more on that later ), I
      > discovered that ocamlc
      > called cl.exe ( MS C/C++ compiler ). The reason is
      > obvious. ocamlc
      > translates ocaml to c and then passes it to the
      > compiler.

      ? From what I know, ocamlc only calls cl.exe to
      compile C code. That's, if you do:

      ocamlc test.c

      and test.c is a C program, then it will compile it
      using (surprise) a C compiler. That's all. It
      compiles itself Caml code.

      > This creates
      > two things I have difficulties with:
      >
      > 1) There is from the main caml page a link to a page
      > where the person
      > claims to have benchmarked C vs caml and caml
      > wins. I had several
      >
      > problems with that page, ( The main one, he
      > uses goto's to
      > optimise his code. The problem is that the
      > optimiser in a C
      > compiler has a much harder time with goto's
      > present [ they are
      > nonlocal branches ]. So I have to trust he does
      > a better job at
      > optimisation than the compiler would do. Yeah
      > sure. )

      performance tests are almost always crap. Specially
      language related ones. To me the only important thing
      is that Caml creates programs that run at an
      acceptable speed, that's all.

      > 2) After a bit of thought I realised something. If
      > the compiler
      > generates C code which gets compiled, then odds
      > are that the
      > debugger is a wrapper of gdb. Big problems on

      Dude, you seem to have done a false assumption, and
      then you're building a big chain of false deductions
      (and at the same time, you're insulting Caml
      developers).

      The debugger is not a wrapper of gdb. And it's one of
      the best debuggers that I've had the pleasure to use.
      Some months ago I was doing a little project for the
      university.

      I first did it in perl, and then I tried to do it in
      Caml (I wanted to learn a bit of Caml). The final
      Caml version was half in size than the perl version,
      and the debugger has a hell of help when I need it.
      Specially the possibility to *go back* in the program
      flow was a life-safer (why this feature does not
      appears in big bold letters in the main ocaml page?).

      I'm not member of a Caml fan club or something, but
      when I'm learning a new language (and I try to do that
      as regularly as possible), I always keep in mind two
      things:

      1) I'm a newbie. If something is going bad, it's
      probably my fault.
      2) Don't insult people that try to help.

      You're welcome to dislike Caml, but don't flame
      others' work in the process.

      Cheers,


      =====
      Joaquin Cuenca Abela
      e98cuenc@...

      __________________________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
      http://faith.yahoo.com
    • olczyk@interaccess.com
      On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:44:55 -0700 (PDT), Joaquin Cuenca Abela ... And Pierre Weis says that I shouldn t call people liars, but when I see a post like this...
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 18, 2002
        On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:44:55 -0700 (PDT), Joaquin Cuenca Abela
        <e98cuenc@...> wrote:

        >
        >--- olczyk@... wrote:
        >>
        >> So when I hear developers saying that their language
        >> is the best I
        >> imediately begin to wonder about it's deficiencies
        >> are.
        >
        >You will have a hard time looking for a language
        >developer that don't states that its language is the
        >best one.
        >
        >Stroustup prefers C++ to any other language for most
        >tasks, Ritchie said that if he was only allowed to
        >keep one language on a desert island, it will be C,
        >etc.
        >
        And Pierre Weis says that I shouldn't call people liars, but when
        I see a post like this...

        There is a big difference between saying " if I could only use one
        language it would be C", and saying "C is the best language".

        Stroustrup has said and continues to say that he refuses to get
        into the debate about what the best language is. Last I looked it
        was the stated on the FAQ on his web page.
        >
        >? From what I know, ocamlc only calls cl.exe to
        >compile C code. That's, if you do:
        >
        >ocamlc test.c
        >
        >and test.c is a C program, then it will compile it
        >using (surprise) a C compiler. That's all. It
        >compiles itself Caml code.
        >
        Uhmmm. If you look at the line of the build that I have posted,
        there are no C or C++ source files in the compile that uses
        cl.exe.

        >performance tests are almost always crap. Specially
        >language related ones. To me the only important thing
        >is that Caml creates programs that run at an
        >acceptable speed, that's all.
        >
        Indeed. As I pointed out the guy who did the test is
        not exactly the person I would want to write efficient C code.
        Which is usually why such preformance tests comparing
        two languages suck. The person is either an expert in one
        language and lacking in the other.


        >
        >Dude, you seem to have done a false assumption, and
        >then you're building a big chain of false deductions
        >(and at the same time, you're insulting Caml
        >developers).
        >
        >The debugger is not a wrapper of gdb. And it's one of
        >the best debuggers that I've had the pleasure to use.
        >Some months ago I was doing a little project for the
        >university.
        >
        >I first did it in perl, and then I tried to do it in
        >Caml (I wanted to learn a bit of Caml). The final
        >Caml version was half in size than the perl version,
        >and the debugger has a hell of help when I need it.
        >Specially the possibility to *go back* in the program
        >flow was a life-safer (why this feature does not
        >appears in big bold letters in the main ocaml page?).
        >
        Actually this is the perfect example of the kind of tunnel
        vision that those clueless exhibit. (With the caveat that I have
        not yet used the debugger, so go by what I read, and not the actual
        feel) CL/Scheme and Smalltalk both have debuggers with this
        feature ( I also suspect that Dylan has it too ) and they have had
        it for a *long. long time* , predating OCaml ( almost predating ML
        as an implemented language).

        In fact both languages have another feature which AFAIK OCaml does
        not. They both support core/images, which allow you to checkpoint
        a run and restart "close to the bug" even when you've pushed the go
        back feature to much.

        >I'm not member of a Caml fan club or something, but
        >when I'm learning a new language (and I try to do that
        >as regularly as possible), I always keep in mind two
        >things:
        >
        >1) I'm a newbie. If something is going bad, it's
        >probably my fault.
        >2) Don't insult people that try to help.
        >
        I don't read the C/C++ Users Journal much any more. But I still
        get it and read the editorials.
        Today the next one arrived with this comment:
        "If you're like me, you tire easily of hype machines that cry wolf
        about this or that whiz-bang tool."
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.