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 BAA24189; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 01:02:01 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA23774 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 01:02:00 +0100 (MET) Received: from igw3.watson.ibm.com (igw3.watson.ibm.com [129.34.20.18]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id i0T01xP05565 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 01:01:59 +0100 (MET) Received: from sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com [129.34.20.41]) by igw3.watson.ibm.com (8.11.7-20030924/8.11.4) with ESMTP id i0T01RN230096; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:01:27 -0500 Received: from bismarck-chet.watson.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (8.11.7-20030924/8.11.7/8.11.7-01-14-2004) with ESMTP id i0T01QI61676; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:01:26 -0500 Received: from bismarck (bismarck [127.0.0.1]) by bismarck-chet.watson.ibm.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id i0T04Ytl007222; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:04:34 -0500 Message-Id: <200401290004.i0T04Ytl007222@bismarck-chet.watson.ibm.com> To: Chet Murthy cc: Martin Berger , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml killer In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:00:49 EST." <200401290000.i0T00ntl006988@bismarck-chet.watson.ibm.com> References: <20040127063230.GA12482@inv_machine> <200401282326.i0SNQntl004612@bismarck-chet.watson.ibm.com> <40184A2F.6040007@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> <200401290000.i0T00ntl006988@bismarck-chet.watson.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:04:34 -0500 From: Chet Murthy X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 chet:01 murthy:01 chet:01 murthy:01 high-level:01 high-level:01 abstraction:01 behavioural:01 javac:01 creators:01 ocaml:01 caml:01 caml:01 writes:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk >>>>> "CM" == Chet Murthy writes: CM> All of these things, in my opinion, benefit from being written CM> in high-level languages -- significantly higher than CCured CM> and Cyclone. CM> The high-level abstraction capabilities of CAML shine here, CM> and do some of capabilities of Java in these applications. I wasn't clear here. The high-level capabilities of both Java and CAML are useful in writing such systems. Too bad Java/the JVM's behavioural attributes make it totally unsuited. Ah, well. For those who don't understand what I mean, take a look at InstallShield MultiPlatform. Also look at "javac" itself. And "jar". Ask yourself how such simple problems have admitted such awful solutions in Java. Marvel at the foolishness of the creators of these artifacts. --chet-- ------------------- 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