Impressed

Paulo Pinto pjmlp at progtools.org
Sat Jul 28 02:37:46 PDT 2012


On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 09:05:13 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen 
wrote:
> On 28-07-2012 09:58, Stuart wrote:
>> On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 07:45:20 UTC, Alex Rønne 
>> Petersen wrote:
>>> On 28-07-2012 09:36, Stuart wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 27 July 2012 at 21:59:33 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Scheme
>>>>> - Haskell
>>>>> - OCaml
>>>>> - F#
>>>>> - Erlang
>>>>> - Clojure
>>>>> - Some C and C++ compilers (gcc, Intel, MSVC in release 
>>>>> mode)
>>>>> - Most commercial Lisp compilers
>>>>
>>>> So, as I said, nothing you can write a real program in - 
>>>> except possibly
>>>> for F#. The possibility of "some" C compilers supporting it 
>>>> doesn't mean
>>>> you can rely on the feature being present.
>>>
>>> Are you serious........?
>>
>> Uh, yeah? Aside from C (which doesn't always support tail call
>> optimisation), and F#, none of these languages would seem to 
>> have any
>> purpose on a desktop computer. I don't know of any way, in 
>> this day and
>> age, to write application software (e.g. Notepad) for a 32 or 
>> 64-bit
>> Windows 7 machine, in goddamn Haskell. I may be mistaken.
>
> Some of the most robust and reliable server systems are written 
> in Erlang.
>
> OCaml is basically F# but in native code. It isn't actually 
> much different from using D in terms of capabilities.

I tend to favour F# instead of OCaml due to three things:

- Visual Studio integration means I can sneak its use in my PC
- As Microsoft language is an easy sell to the boss and clients
- It has better multicore support as OCaml, which still suffers 
from a global lock


--
Paulo


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list