From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1875BBC69 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:48:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.140]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l7L0mbvi002677 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:48:39 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.19,286,1183300200"; d="scan'208";a="176398475" Received: from ppp59-167-13-161.lns2.syd7.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([59.167.13.161]) by ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 21 Aug 2007 10:17:56 +0930 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] If OCaml were a car From: skaller To: Oliver Bandel Cc: Caml-list List In-Reply-To: <1187639685.46c9f1859d769@webmail.in-berlin.de> References: <20070818192157.GA11789@furbychan.cocan.org> <6806cf750708181324l724823c6w304f9088980c3316@mail.gmail.com> <46C76557.5050308@cs.caltech.edu> <56864F61-40F3-4F03-9823-6D510AD5320B@epfl.ch> <1187639685.46c9f1859d769@webmail.in-berlin.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:47:54 +1000 Message-Id: <1187657274.18344.9.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 46CA3665.004 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 0200,:01 bandel:01 ocaml's:01 syntax:01 ocaml:01 refusal:98 trusting:98 sourceforge:01 imho:01 wrote:01 oliver:01 caml-list:01 minor:01 native:03 On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 21:54 +0200, Oliver Bandel wrote: > Compared to that the discussions on OCaml's defficiencies are > incomprehensible to me. Unfortunately not so. The syntax is only a minor issue IMHO. There are a number of other annoyances. But the major issues are: (1.a) lack of dynamic loading (of native code) -- hopefully to be fixed in 3.11 (1.b) lack of multi-processing (2.a) interoperability -- with C libraries -- with .NET libraries (F# isn't Ocaml) (2.b) refusal of Inria team to provide a more complete library (3) lack of ISO or ECMA standardisation We who use Ocaml are patient (fixes 1), creative (fixes 2), and trusting (fixes 3), which are three properties industry does not have. -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net