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 NAA25422; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 13:00:00 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id NAA25512 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 13:00:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA21735 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:01:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail.interaktif.net.tr ([62.248.102.120]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9F911D23084 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:01:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from abn166-176.ank-avrupa-ports.kablonet.net.tr (unknown [195.174.166.176]) by mail.interaktif.net.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560DC1E66A; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:58:06 +0300 (EEST) From: Eray Ozkural Organization: Bilkent University CS Dept. To: John Max Skaller , Oleg Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: productivity improvement Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:57:10 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.5 Cc: OCaml References: <200207081952.PAA28813@hickory.cc.columbia.edu> <200207121035.GAA26600@dewberry.cc.columbia.edu> <3D2EDD3B.2080100@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3D2EDD3B.2080100@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200210151157.10918.erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr> Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Friday 12 July 2002 16:44, John Max Skaller wrote: > Two major reasons. > > (1) licence uncertainty > (2) lack of programmers > > Issue (2) will go away with time as use snowballs, > it would help if Universities started teaching Ocaml instead > of stupid OO languages like Java, or at least as well as. Indeed. The industry wants OO, the industry thinks Java is the ultimate OO language, they persuade clueless academics (who might as well think that choice of PL is irrelevant to understanding the theory), and then they start teaching Java (and now C#) at the university. The problem is that OO is *not* the best approach to programming. OO is a kind of program conceptualization that might be of some use in certain domains while failing miserably in majority of domains. That's why most of the "OO" code is iteration constructs and imperative nonsense, over and over again. I once told a colleague that 90% percent of the code we are writing in C++ is iterators. Nothing in the world could be more stupid than that. Besides, C does not hold the crown of imperative languages, especially when it comes to demonstrating the basics of programming. Pascal does a much better job at that in my opinion, and Algol might even do better but nobody comprehends its prominence among imperative languages. It is so amusing when "Software Engineers" find out that the overblown UML can't be used to model every kind of program. Happy hacking, -- Eray Ozkural Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C ------------------- 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