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: htt
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
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
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 yo
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 p
* 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 qu
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 regar
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 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
pr
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:
> 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
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 bites
12 matches
Mail list logo
