OCAMl a more natural extension language for python?

[Jelle Feringa // EZCT / Paris]

After reading about extending python with C/Fortran in the excellent Python
Scripting for Computational Science book by Hans Langtangen, I'm wondering
whether there's not a more pythonic way of extending python. And frankly I
think there is: OCAML

Fortunately there is already a project up and running allowing you to extend
python with OCAMl: http://pycaml.sourceforge.net/

Since I haven't got actual experience programming CAML I'd like to speculate
that OCAML would be a very pythonic way of extending python: its
open-source, object oriented, as fast as C, and ! garbage collecting!

Would making an effort integrating python & CAML not be very worthwhile?
I think an effort such as Joe Strouts python2c would be more relevant to a
language as CAMl since its conceptually more closer to python (how could you
automate programming memory allocation for instance)

So my question is: wouldn't there be some serious synergy in bringing python
& CAML closer together?

##of course this is speculation, I'm not informed well
##enough to make an educated guess

Interested in hearing your thoughts about this matter!

Cheers, Jelle.

[Duncan Booth]

Re: OCAMl a more natural extension language for python?

Jelle Feringa // EZCT / Paris wrote:
[color=blue]
> After reading about extending python with C/Fortran in the excellent
> Python Scripting for Computational Science book by Hans Langtangen,
> I'm wondering whether there's not a more pythonic way of extending
> python. And frankly I think there is: OCAML
>[/color]

There is an even more pythonic way to extend (or embed) python. Have you
looked at Pyrex?

http://nz.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg/python/Pyrex/

[Ville Vainio]

Re: OCAMl a more natural extension language for python?

>>>>> "Jelle" == Jelle Feringa // EZCT / Paris <jelle.feringa@ ezct.net> writes:

Jelle> After reading about extending python with C/Fortran in the
Jelle> excellent Python Scripting for Computational Science book
Jelle> by Hans Langtangen, I'm wondering whether there's not a
Jelle> more pythonic way of extending python. And frankly I think
Jelle> there is: OCAML

For many tasks the point of "extending" python is to gain access to
libraries that have a C/C++ API. Extensions that merely provide a
faster way to do something are much rarer.

--
Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb

[Do Re Mi chel La Si Do]

Re: OCAMl a more natural extension language for python?

Hi !

OCAML is very complementary at Python :

unreadable vs readable
functionnel vs procedural/POO/etc.
compiled vs interpreted (or compil JIT)
very fast vs mean velocity
hard to learn vs easy to easy to learn


Yes, OCAML is very complementary, too much, much too, complementary at
Python...

But, C is not complementary to Python (in the same state of mind).



And, what do you think of... Erlang ?


@-salutations
--
Michel Claveau

[beliavsky@aol.com]

Re: OCAMl a more natural extension language for python?

Jelle Ferringa wrote:
[color=blue]
>Since I haven't got actual experience programming CAML I'd like to[/color]
speculate[color=blue]
>that OCAML would be a very pythonic way of extending python: its
>open-source, object oriented, as fast as C, and ! garbage collecting![/color]

The open source g95 Fortran 95 compiler is already usable and will be
officially released this year. Fortran and C are comparable in speed,
and if one uses allocatable arrays rather than pointers, memory leaks
should not occur. Fortran 2003 supports OOP with inheritance, and a few
F95 compilers already have this functionality.
[color=blue]
>That's depending on how you compare; I find OCAML quite readable[/color]
compared to C / Fortran .

Have you ever used Fortran 90 or 95?

I don't use OCAML, so I looked at some OCAML code to multiply matrices
at

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/benchmark.php?test=matrix&lang=ocaml&id=0&sort=cpu

from the Computer Language Shootout . To create a matrix the OCAML code
is

7 let mkmatrix rows cols =
8 let count = ref 1 and last_col = cols - 1
9 and m = Array.make_matr ix rows cols 0 in
10 for i = 0 to rows - 1 do
11 let mi = m.(i) in
12 for j = 0 to last_col do mi.(j) <- !count; incr count done;
13 done;

In Python with Numeric it's just

x = zeros([nrow,ncol],Float)

and in Fortran 90/95 it's just

real, allocatable :: x(:,:)
allocate (x(nrow,ncol))

There appears not to be a built-in function for matrix multiplication
in OCAML. There is in Python with Numeric or Numarray or Fortran 90/95.
For problems where the main data structures are arrays, OCAML seems to
be considerably more low-level than Python with Numeric/Numarray or
Fortran 90/95. Also, there exists a vast computational infrastructure
in Fortran and C (see http://www.netlib.org). Does OCAML have this?