|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
- From: "Jonathan Tran" <jonnytran@gmail.com>
- To: philly-lambda@googlegroups.com
- Subject: Re: OCaml likes/dislikes
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:24:57 -0400
- Authentication-results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jonnytran@gmail.com designates 64.233.178.249 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jonnytran@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:x-sender:x-apparently-to :received:received:received-spf:authentication-results:received :dkim-signature:domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id :date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:reply-to :sender:precedence:x-google-loop:mailing-list:list-id:list-post :list-help:list-unsubscribe:x-beenthere; bh=mGlQu1/CZNT40eDsR2Out1blNCSk0xyMdLcndqsRk24=; b=T/xyWNXVDMVbrU1zoisNOpjWF2z3nSL1DKGFSCDdxn3DS1KUw1dW1O8AmVBO+q8NZx sHfol7yMWxDGaM40emFCqzUPiRxq8Egr3kBuof2YI6zBd6tADuNF3l+lb7xzXZW56xD+ ty0unvH8ytn15uLLxCwA0hL4ZbUonWfQePAns=
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=WuZHkfkjDPrwkmZpSvxdSqqEDLNv6nkst01lZheaxqo=; b=D99VsB+9Gkeqg/dJMj3uOBjc7qUvz15eQ1dXu19XbU19d+VTVb38rnipr2Y1oiAZXB KcBfUPP/toA/MzGafxLU2z1cBriHptlcFFSMZFzw8/Dp64mRlsBJxEj7nC8rzKNUSo3t 3fqbwQw3AcrcXA7rCd+ipLj4ThEbwHwPFG3bM=
- Mailing-list: list philly-lambda@googlegroups.com; contact philly-lambda-owner@googlegroups.com
- Reply-to: philly-lambda@googlegroups.com
- Sender: philly-lambda@googlegroups.com
Here is a simple SML vs. OCaml syntax comparison.
http://www.mpi-sws.mpg.de/~rossberg/sml-vs-ocaml.html
Anyone interested in a more detailed (hardcore) comparison.
http://adam.chlipala.net/mlcomp/
In general, SML is simpler and more pure. OCaml more practical.
Reminiscent of Scheme vs. Common Lisp respectively.
No need to be making weather simulations though. :-) (My 2 cents)
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Josh Goldstein <oopjosh@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I had an 'advanced' class using SML, so you could say I have some
> experience. Before tht I had mostly used Scheme, Java and C. I found the
> type system pretty neat! So, I looked at OCaml once and it seemed to do
> almost the exact same stuff, but with a slightly messier syntax. IIRC, it's
> supposed to be better for more computationally intensive things because it
> has faster/more compact 2D arrays. I had found a nice page at one point
> comparing SML and OCaml, listing how you do everything in each language
> side-by-side with how you do it in the other language, and the OCaml syntax
> was always worse. They seemed close enough that if you loved the type
> system, pattern matching, etc. in SML you'd get used to OCaml super fast
> anyway. But I figured why bother with OCaml since I'm not writing anything
> like weather/NASA simulations anyway.
> Just my 2 cents :)
>
|
|