On 16 Aug 2005 01:32:16 -0700, rumours say that Paul Rubin
http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] might have written:
Erlang apparently uses microthreads,
probably allocating every call frame on the heap like SML/NJ did, so
they showed it with 80,000 connections open.
This is 8 TCP/IP v4 connections open?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Richter) writes:
built-in concurrency support. OCaml seems to crush Haskell and Erlang
(and even Java) in performance. Occam isn't used for much practical
any more, but takes a purist approach to concurrency that seems worth
studying.
IIRC, I've seen something about
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So I think a (maybe not achievable) performance goal
is for the web app to use 50% of the available cycles making html, and
the other 50% go to gzipping the html. That means that the app should
make dynamic output as fast as gzip can compress it,
Quoth Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| Right now I'm mainly interested in OCaml, Haskell, Erlang, and maybe
| Occam. Haskell seems to have the happiest users, which is always a
| good thing. Erlang has been used for real-world systems and has
| built-in concurrency support. OCaml seems
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Michael Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Donn Cave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the contrary, there are a couple. Ghc is probably the
leading implementation these days, and by any reasonable
measure, it is serious.
Objective CAML is indeed not a pure
Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: No good news for scripting-language fans:
: http://www.phpmag.net/itr/news/psecom,id,23284,nodeid,113.html
What incredible horse dooey.
The only thing that NEVER penetrates the enterprise space
is good sense.
Does anyone read history books?
phil wrote:
Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: No good news for scripting-language fans:
: http://www.phpmag.net/itr/news/psecom,id,23284,nodeid,113.html
What incredible horse dooey.
The only thing that NEVER penetrates the enterprise space
is good sense.
Does anyone read
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ruby just doesn't interest me that much though (maybe I'm missing
something).
I don't think you are. My impression is that if you've never used Python or
Ruby, you'll generally end up liking whichever of the two you really discover
first (since the common case is that you're
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Donn Cave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My vote would be Haskell first, then other functional languages.
Learning FP with Objective CAML is like learning to swim in a
wading pool -- you won't drown, but there's a good
Donn Cave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure what you mean by that about OCAML. That its functional
model is not pure enough? I'd like to look at Haskell as well, but I
have the impression that its implementation is not as serious as
OCaml's, i.e. no native-code compiler.
On the
Donn Cave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the contrary, there are a couple. Ghc is probably the
leading implementation these days, and by any reasonable
measure, it is serious.
Objective CAML is indeed not a pure functional language.
*cough* unsafePerformIO *cough*
Cheers,
mwh
--
MAN:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I notice that Haskell strings are character lists, i.e. at least
conceptually, hello takes the equivalent of five cons cells. Do
real implementations (i.e. GHC) actually work like that? If so, that's
enough to kill
Well, I tried sending this via email, but I can't derive a valid
address from Paul's anti-spammed address.
My apologies to the rest of you for this.
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Should that bother me? I should say, my interest in Ocaml or Haskell
is not just to try out
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I tried sending this via email, but I can't derive a valid
address from Paul's anti-spammed address.
Yeah, I should update that url since they turned off the forwarding.
It should be http://paulrubin.com. But a thread titled decline and
fall
gene tani [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://martinfowler.com/bliki/CollectionClosureMethod.html
http://onestepback.org/index.cgi/Tech/Ruby/PythonAndRuby.rdoc
Thanks, the way Ruby passes closure arguments to various of its
library builtins is cute. PEP 343 adds something sort of comparable
to
Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: No good news for scripting-language fans:
: http://www.phpmag.net/itr/news/psecom,id,23284,nodeid,113.html
Just as well I ditched a scripting language for Python then...
cds
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Quoth Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| Paul Rubin wrote:
[ ... re where to go from Python ]
| Lately I'm interested in OCAML as a possible step up from Python. It
| has bogosity of its own (much of it syntactic) but it has static
| typing and a serious compiler, from what I understand. I don't
(throw Martin Fowler and Paul Graham into google blender)
http://www.billkatz.com/node/42
http://osteele.com/archives/2005/03/ruby-and-laszlo
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Donn Cave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My vote would be Haskell first, then other functional languages.
Learning FP with Objective CAML is like learning to swim in a
wading pool -- you won't drown, but there's a good chance you
won't really learn to swim either. Has an interesting, very
No good news for scripting-language fans:
http://www.phpmag.net/itr/news/psecom,id,23284,nodeid,113.html
Regards
Kay
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Kay Schluehr wrote:
No good news for scripting-language fans:
http://www.phpmag.net/itr/news/psecom,id,23284,nodeid,113.html
The study was conducted by Evans Data Corporation. Look here:
http://www.evansdata.com/n2/about_us_clients.shtml
Do you see the PSF or Larry Wall on the list?
Do you know anyone who has dropped LAMP for a proprietary Web solution?
Or vice versa?
Know any sys-admins that have dropped their use of scripting languages
for something else?
What are the alternatives that are supposedly driving scripting
languages out?
- I'm unconvinced.
--
On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 03:24 -0700, Kay Schluehr wrote:
No good news for scripting-language fans:
http://www.phpmag.net/itr/news/psecom,id,23284,nodeid,113.html
It didn't say what they left PHP, Perl and Python for (if you are to
even believe their findings).
PHP has been losing programmers
Cliff Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It didn't say what they left PHP, Perl and Python for (if you are to
even believe their findings).
PHP has been losing programmers in droves... to Ruby on Rails, but I'm
not sure how that is bad news for scripting-language fans.
That's the second time
Joseph Garvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's the second time in one or two days that I've heard Ruby on
Rails mentioned. Can anyone here post a paragraph or two description?
I sort of know what Ruby is, a very OOP-ified Perl-resemblant
language, that's also implemented only as an
Paul Rubin wrote:
Joseph Garvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's the second time in one or two days that I've heard Ruby on
Rails mentioned. Can anyone here post a paragraph or two description?
I sort of know what Ruby is, a very OOP-ified Perl-resemblant
language, that's also implemented only
Paul Rubin wrote:
Cliff Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It didn't say what they left PHP, Perl and Python for (if you are to
even believe their findings).
PHP has been losing programmers in droves... to Ruby on Rails, but I'm
not sure how that is bad news for scripting-language fans.
Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The whole ML family ( including OCaml ) and languages like Haskell
based on a Hindley-Milnor type system clearly make a difference. I
would say that those languages are also cutting edge in language theory
research. It should be definitely interesting to
28 matches
Mail list logo
