Subj : Re: Compiler and an interpreter
To   : comp.programming
From : Jon Harrop
Date : Fri Aug 05 2005 01:32 pm

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <42f1e845$0$24015$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
> usenet@jdh30.plus.com says...
>> No. Witness the dozens of curly braces in my slightly longer example.
> 
> I meant the includes.  But a curly brackets is not really equivalent to
> a typical "line of code" anyway.

As programs grow and code is split between many files, the number of
includes will also grow, albeit slowly.

>> As programs get bigger, I'd rather write less code.
> 
> LOC is a poor metric for most purposes - it's reciprocal is equally
> poor.  The bottom line, in any case, is that typing speed is not a
> bottleneck for most programmers.

Reading speed is.

>> > I have doubts whether set theoretic operations in STL are designed, or
>> > at least implemented, for efficiency.  Certainly if I wanted to write
>> > an efficient program in the sphere referred to, I would carefully
>> > consider my choice of data structures.
>> 
>> You should study the STL...
> 
> Look what it did to you!  Seriously, by your own account your excessive
> respect for arcane STL features eventually resulted in your abandonment
> of the language.

No, the presence of a language that lets me write shorter, faster code in
less time led to my abandonment of C++. The STL lets me write shorter,
faster C++ code so it actually made C++ more competitive. C++ simply cannot
compete though.

> Certainly, I'll look at the STL, or any library, to see if it has what
> I need.  But efficient code requires a certain amount of attention to
> the computer's needs also.

The OCaml code is efficient and required no such "attention".

>> Perhaps if you give some examples of applications that you believe FPLs
>> are poorly suited to?
> 
> Computer games would be a good example.

What aspect of games and what types of games do you think FPLs are not
suitable for? I assume you know that several professional games houses use
FPLs?

>> Yes. Why do you think these real-world performance-critical programs are
>> "invalid" as benchmarks?
> 
> Because you appear to use unsuitable methodologies in your C++
> versions.

What do you believe is a "suitable methodology"?

>> I don't know what you think constitutes the "vast bulk of computer
>> programming" but you'll find substantially more complicated algorithms
>> and data structures in graphics, databases, games and so on. Most of
>> these would be more easily and efficiently coded in OCaml than C++.
> 
> There may well be complex algorithms implemented here and there in all
> sorts of software, but the bulk of most programs consists of simple
> structures, marshalling of resources, user interfaces etc.

I don't seem to spend most of my time writing simple functions...

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com

.