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 discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E83BC6E for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:26:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from ptb-relay01.plus.net (ptb-relay01.plus.net [212.159.14.212]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l29AQG3D016466 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:26:16 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by ptb-relay01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1HPcIi-0001Za-2L for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:26:16 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Operator overloading Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:20:26 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <3D1E4D9CA9BCE04D8F2B55F203AE4CE30666AB74@selma.roomandboard.com> In-Reply-To: <3D1E4D9CA9BCE04D8F2B55F203AE4CE30666AB74@selma.roomandboard.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703091020.26560.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 45F13648.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; overloading:01 overloading:01 language's:01 inference:01 annotations:01 emacs:01 emacs:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 embrace:98 frog:98 wrote:01 imho:01 abstract:01 caml-list:01 On Thursday 08 March 2007 20:02, Robert Fischer wrote: > Which is exactly my point. You should have to document all that, because > they are genuinely different operations. You have these operations, so why > shouldn't you document them? Or, better yet, abstract them and organize > them. By using operator overloading, you're sweeping under the rug genuine > complexity -- something that my surprise later developers! Because the distinction is purely incidental as it depends upon the language's choice of type system. > When I see "+", I want to know what that means. With operator overloading, > I don't know. The same can be said of type inference. Then you're advocating explicit type annotations everywhere. > An IDE might help me out there, but that's just polishing a > genuine ding on code readbility and maintainability. Why should I have to > rely on an IDE to make sense of my code? This is precisely why I rely so heavily on Tuareg's type throwback in Emacs. If you sacrifice your development environment (even if it is just emacs) then productivity goes down. Failing to embrace a future of graphical IDEs is a bad idea, IMHO. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. OCaml for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists