|
|
comp.lang.lisp |
Firstly, the language comparison is with C++, Java and SML as well, all of I'll have a look at Lispworks... -- Luke J Crook wrote: That doesn't really make any sense.
> How many implementations of Ocaml are there? One. So every developer
> working on Ocaml is hammering that one version. If you want to compare
> Ocaml to an open source language then choose a language for which there
> is but a single implementation; Perl, Python, Parrot, PHP, Ruby etc.
which have multiple implementations. Indeed, two implementations of SML are
already on the language comparison. Secondly, of the languages you listed,
at least Perl and Python have multiple implementations. Finally, the number
of implementations is irrelevant.
> If you want to compare Ocaml to a specific implementation of Lisp, then We're Linux only, so Corman is out the window. Which of the other Lisp
> target CMUCL, SBCL, CLISP, Lispworks etc. However, if you want to
> compare the performance of Lisp to the performance of Ocaml then choose
> the fastest implementation of Lisp available and run that. Allego,
> Lispworks and Corman (Corman is Windows only) are all free to you for
> this purpose.
implementations do you expect to do well at this task?
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com