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 UAA29659; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:15:27 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 UAA29871 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:15:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from eposta.kablonet.com.tr ([62.248.102.66]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id h3SIFLT28738 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:15:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 34294 invoked by uid 0); 28 Apr 2003 18:22:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 195.174.169.185) (exa@195.174.169.185) by 0 with SMTP; 28 Apr 2003 18:22:41 -0000 From: Eray Ozkural Reply-To: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr Organization: Bilkent University CS Dept. To: David Brown Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Easy solution in OCaml? Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:14:37 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 References: <20030427164326.34082.qmail@web41211.mail.yahoo.com> <3EAD18FC.7050108@stud.uni-graz.at> <20030428142223.GA3924@opus.davidb.org> In-Reply-To: <20030428142223.GA3924@opus.davidb.org> Cc: caml-list@inria.fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200304282114.37271.exa@kablonet.com.tr> X-Spam: no; 0.00; eray:01 ozkural:01 caml-list:01 closures:01 haskell:01 orthogonal:01 lacking:01 declarative:01 cardelli:01 erayo:01 bilkent:01 ankara:01 kde:01 malfunction:01 ariza:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Monday 28 April 2003 17:22, David Brown wrote: > To me, the core feature of functional programming are first class > closures. Everything else just makes it more convenient. Well said. I would also like to say here that I fail to see what distinguishes the core of ocaml and haskell so much from a semantics point of view!!!!!!! Both are functional languages with sequential constructs and advanced type systems IMHO. Minus the object system, the module system of ocaml can be viewed as a more advanced kind of "type class" in haskell (assuming we can compare constructs inexactly!!) The really cool object system comes as a bonus... Being an "amateur" PL designer, I think both languages are very orthogonal but they are both lacking the degree of parallelism that would make me think of them as purely declarative... There is also another point that I think is worthy of making. You can extend ocaml rather easily using p4. I think in the future a safe and easy kind of semantic extensibility will be the way to go, like Cardelli described in that paper... :P Not intended as flamery :) Regards, -- Eray Ozkural (exa) Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara KDE Project: http://www.kde.org www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo Malfunction: http://mp3.com/ariza 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