[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Question about CLisp, Dylan, Haskell, Ocaml
-
To: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
-
Subject: Re: Question about CLisp, Dylan, Haskell, Ocaml
-
From: David Bakhash <cadet@alum.mit.edu>
-
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:45:03 -0500 (EST)
-
Followup-To: comp.lang.lisp
-
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
-
References: <92svh8$ohn$1@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu> <92u0nd$69t$1@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu> <92upef$mh5$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <92v9l3$hb0$1@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu>
-
Reply-To: David Bakhash <cadet@alum.mit.edu>
-
Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.functional:23285 comp.lang.lisp:60795 comp.lang.smalltalk:109315 comp.lang.dylan:12948 comp.lang.forth:62694 comp.lang.eiffel:43788 comp.lang.ml:4153
israel raj thomas <israelt@optushome.com.au> writes:
> "There were 39 entries, with teams ranging from 1 to 13 persons.
> Breakdown by language used:
> C, C++ 7
> Clean 1
> Dylan 1
> Eiffel 1
> Haskell 6
> Java 6
> Mercury 1
> ML 9
> Perl 2
> Python 1
> Scheme 2
> Smalltalk 2
I'm confused, since this column adds to 39, but there's no OCaml
there. Am I missing something?
If it interests anyone, there is an OO book out there that compares
the object systems of CL, Haskell, and Eiffel (I think it was those
3). If people are interested in that book, let me know, and I'll try
to get the name.
I do think that it's good for people to know what other programmers
are using in competitions, and which languages win. These languages
are interesting, but it's important to consider the criteria for
winning.
OCaml really does look interesting, considering what people have been
able to do with it. I think the syntax and the feel of it just wasn't
right for me, but it's free, got a supposedly excellent compiler, and
is relatively high-level. Probably worth looking at again.
dave
Follow-Ups: