From: William Chesters <williamc@paneris.org>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: Why is Ocaml better than Java (WAS: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:37:55 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <15136.65379.944119.752870@beertje.william.bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200106081331.PAA20496@pauillac.inria.fr>
Pierre Weis writes:
> The more interesting features Caml offers to the programmer are
>
> - concrete data types (sum types) along with pattern matching
> - abstraction facilities thanks to modules (providing abstract data types)
Yes, Java has only one mechanism for abstraction, viz dynamic dispatch
(virtual methods).* They're quite handy sometimes, hence ocaml's
classes---but increasingly they are no longer seen as the be-all and
end-all of programming. With C++ moving more and more towards
templates, i.e. modules in the ML sense, "selling" other paradigms can
only get easier.
* unless you count data hiding as such to be a mechanism which I
hardly do :)
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-06-08 16:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-06-07 8:58 [Caml-list] ocaml complexity leary
2001-06-07 18:29 ` Jonathan Coupe
2001-06-08 9:41 ` leary
2001-06-08 10:05 ` Why is Ocaml better than Java (WAS: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity) Mattias Waldau
2001-06-08 13:31 ` Pierre Weis
2001-06-08 16:37 ` William Chesters [this message]
2001-06-08 21:39 ` Brian Rogoff
[not found] ` <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106081430070.27414-100000@shell5.ba.best.co m>
2001-06-08 22:16 ` Chris Hecker
2001-06-08 12:27 ` [Caml-list] ocaml complexity Jonathan Coupe
2001-06-08 20:22 ` Chris Hecker
2001-06-08 20:31 ` Miles Egan
2001-06-08 22:17 ` Jonathan Coupe
2001-06-08 22:18 ` Miles Egan
2001-06-11 14:05 ` Pierre Weis
2001-06-09 19:41 ` John Max Skaller
2001-06-08 22:59 ` David Fox
2001-06-09 0:43 ` leary
2001-06-09 1:09 ` Mark Wotton
2001-06-09 8:36 ` Markus Mottl
2001-06-09 20:58 ` John Max Skaller
2001-06-08 22:46 ` leary
2001-06-09 1:18 ` David Fox
2001-06-12 14:17 ` John Max Skaller
2001-06-13 15:21 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-06-13 20:32 ` leary
2001-06-13 22:58 ` Johann Höchtl
2001-06-13 21:18 ` John Max Skaller
2001-06-09 22:32 ` Jonathan Coupe
2001-06-11 0:20 ` leary
2001-06-08 10:15 Why is Ocaml better than Java (WAS: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity) Dave Berry
2001-06-11 19:36 Jean-Marc Eber
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=15136.65379.944119.752870@beertje.william.bogus \
--to=williamc@paneris.org \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).