On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 09:37 -0600, Robert Morelli wrote: > My contention is simply that the program is incomplete; there's > more to be discovered by implementing more of mathematics. The > attitude that OCaml is some kind of pinnacle of language development, > already capable of dealing with all problems (and anyone who fails to > agree must simply be ignorant), is quite depressing to me. Good heavens, no one here believes that! > If it > were true, I don't think good researchers would be developing it. Precisely. Its just that it is way WAY ahead of Java and C++ in most domains, and unlike many advanced academic languages, it has a reasonable number of users, has been developed conservatively, and is beginning to be used in RL (Xavier proofing required) industrial applications. For once many people would probably agree with me, that here is a high performance advanced general purpose proven industrial strength programming language -- there are few others that rate all those adjectives. -- John Skaller