Python-like compiled language
aleaxit at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 13 17:16:38 EST 2000
"Erno Kuusela" <erno-news at erno.iki.fi> wrote in message
news:kulmtk5h86.fsf at lasipalatsi.fi...
> In article <917ipt023tk at news2.newsguy.com>, "Alex Martelli"
> <aleaxit at yahoo.com> writes:
> || [good scheme suggestion snipped]
> || it is also rumored that ocaml has a good optimizing compiler.
> | It has an _excellent_ compiler, but it has no similarity to
> | Python whatsoever.
> well, compared to c/c++ at least it is quite high-level and it has
> nice syntax. :)
We'll have to disagree on the latter, I fear. I'm on record as
loathing C's syntax (and C++'s, because of compatibility with
C's), but OCaml's horrid crowded syntax is a factor that keeps
me away from it. Do you LIKE writing
2.1 +. 3.2 /. 4.3
...? Just about every other infix-syntax language in the world
lets you write
2.1 + 3.2 / 4.3
but OCaml insists on the dotted-operators (the undotted ones
are reserved for integer ops). And that's just the start of it.
Actually, OCaml _does_ have somewhat of a C++ feel to it --
crowded syntax, lots of reasonably-coexisting (but not fully
integrated) paradigms, pretty good code generation (thanks
in part to a pretty rigid static typesystem), decent integration
with the environment. It *IS* higher-level, and not as stable
or mature as C++, of course (with all that follows), but that
may be just a, oh, 10-years shift, maybe (the first OCaml book
came out in '95, I believe -- not too far from 10 years after
the first C++ one; there's a newer book now -- but many
things in it as marked as 'experimental, may change in future
More information about the Python-list