From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA02133; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:21:32 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA00891 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:21:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.181]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i869LSAC022246 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:21:29 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp210-32.lns2.syd3.internode.on.net [203.122.210.32]) by smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i869L54Y017250; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 18:51:06 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] build tools with critical mass? From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: "chris.danx" Cc: "Brandon J. Van Every" , caml-list In-Reply-To: <413BC51A.1030009@ntlworld.com> References: <413BC51A.1030009@ntlworld.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1094462464.3352.1043.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 06 Sep 2004 19:21:05 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 413C2C18.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 brandon:99 meets:99 meets:99 sympathy:01 pragmatic:01 9660:01 glebe:01 chris:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 face:98 nsw:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 12:02, chris.danx wrote: > Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > Ocaml is my > choice for graphics because of it provides good performance and doesn't > pigeon hole the problem to an "imperative", "object orientated" or > "functional" solution. Yes but if you look at the reason you can do this, you'll find answers like 'sound type system', and then you can start to use that as a way to judge the capabilities of other languages. in that case 'it meets my needs' isn't so much of an argument, since the *real* requirement isn't that it meets you needs, but that it meets you needs *and will continue to do so in the face of change*. In other words to predict the true productivity benefits of a language you really do need to examine the mathematical fundamentals. I don't have confidence in Ocaml *just* because it has been able to do what I wanted, and still does, but *also* because I trust the developers to extend it in ways which mathematics predicts are sound and useful. I have much sympathy for 'it works in practice, but does it work in theory?' because in my exprience, the pragmatic reality is that if it doesn't work in theory -- you're just deluding yourself that it actually does work in practice :) -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners