On Thu, 17 May 2001, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 03:20:08PM +0100, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
I still remember an article about C++ templating being a turing complete
language in it's own right or something weird. This isn't it, but is
entertaining anyway:
Hi,
Have you seen http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/ ?
My pike loving friend was amused to see Perl and Python trounced. But
the testing rig was written in Perl at least.
Cheers
--
Merijn Broeren | Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavour of life,
Software Geek | take big
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 01:19:27PM +0200, Merijn Broeren wrote:
Have you seen http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/ ?
My pike loving friend was amused to see Perl and Python trounced. But
the testing rig was written in Perl at least.
His perl isn't necessarily the fastest in all cases. I
Quoting Tony Bowden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
His perl isn't necessarily the fastest in all cases. I sped some of his
scripts up quite significantly - enough to move it back up above Python
anyway ;)
I was looking at the attributions page and saw only your name. I was
kind of expecting the
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 01:19:27PM +0200, Merijn Broeren wrote:
My pike loving friend was amused to see Perl and Python trounced. But
the testing rig was written in Perl at least.
I was astounded by the performance of Ocaml.
Being forced by an insane lecturer to debug an obfuscated Ocaml
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 03:04:47PM +0100, Robin Houston wrote:
Statement:
(And _boy_ can you write obfuscated Ocaml programs if you try!
User-definable infix operators are an especially nice touch in
that regard)
Answer:
Why isn't Ocaml more popular? Is there a good reason?
-Dom
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 03:06:45PM +0100, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 03:04:47PM +0100, Robin Houston wrote:
Statement:
(And _boy_ can you write obfuscated Ocaml programs if you try!
User-definable infix operators are an especially nice touch in
that regard)
* Robin Houston ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 01:19:27PM +0200, Merijn Broeren wrote:
My pike loving friend was amused to see Perl and Python trounced. But
the testing rig was written in Perl at least.
I was astounded by the performance of Ocaml.
But the question
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 03:12:58PM +0100, Robin Houston wrote:
I don't find that enormously convincing as a reason, though.
You may have noticed that it's possible to write obfuscated
Perl programs ;)
No, I've only over seen pleasant, readable perl code posted to this
list.
C++ is also
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 03:20:08PM +0100, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
I still remember an article about C++ templating being a turing complete
language in it's own right or something weird. This isn't it, but is
entertaining anyway:
http://www.annexia.org/freeware/cpptemplates/
And if you
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Merijn Broeren wrote:
Quoting Tony Bowden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
His perl isn't necessarily the fastest in all cases. I sped some of his
scripts up quite significantly - enough to move it back up above Python
anyway ;)
I was looking at the attributions page and
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 03:28:13PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
But the question is, are they generating C code from Ocaml code
and compiling it,
I don't think so. I think the Ocaml compiler compiles directly to
machine code. But what difference does it make, ultimately?
this would explain
12 matches
Mail list logo
