I wonder if that's another reason OCaml is used in a(t least one)
hedge fund -- why Jane St. preferred OCaml to Haskell, I wonder? Was
it the state of affairs then that OCaml was more efficient (? --
WAGuess), and would they prefer Haskell now? I'm trying to make sense
out of OCaml objects out of that already infamously annoying
"Practical OCaml" book, and class object <blah>... doesn't look like
much, not to say that "class object" sounds about as bad as most
English in that book. (Written by an English major... What a decline
in US education! :) I come from ML background, so Haskell laziness
and OCaml objects are all new to me. But my Haskell book, Haskell
School of Expression, is so much better written, that I'm reading it
much faster.
I'm CC'ing Yaron as his e-mail comes up in my Gmail context adwords on
the word "Haskell." :) I'm interested in financial data mining and
market modeling -- are there any good application of FP there, say in
Lisp?
Cheers,
Alexy
P.S. Somebody with an old-fashioned mail client please feel free to
change the subject to "Financial Engineering with FP," gmail seems to
etch its subjects in stone. :)
On 1/23/07, Martin Jambon
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Alexy Khrabrov wrote:
Greetings -- I'm looking at several FP languages for data mining, and was annoyed to learn that Erlang represents each character as 8 BYTES in a string which is just a list of characters. Now I'm reading a Haskell book which states the same. Is there a more efficient Haskell string-handling method? Which functional language is the most suitable for text processing?
In OCaml, strings are compact sequences of bytes. And you can pass them as-is to C functions:
http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2002/08/e109df224ff0150b30203...
Martin
-- Martin Jambon http://martin.jambon.free.fr