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 QAA20390; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:43:08 +0200 (MET DST) 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 QAA21069 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:43:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mailhost.tni.fr (firewall.tni.fr [195.25.255.61]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h3SEh5H01935 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:43:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from groscool.tni.fr ([195.25.255.1]) by mailhost.tni.fr (Netscape Messaging Server 3.62) with SMTP id 3015; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:42:44 +0200 Received: from 192.168.7.60 by groscool.tni.fr (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:42:44 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Message-ID: <3EAD3CCF.C412B078@tni.fr> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:38:07 +0200 From: "sebastien FURIC" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [fr] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Brown CC: Siegfried Gonzi , Noel Welsh , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Easy solution in OCaml? References: <20030427164326.34082.qmail@web41211.mail.yahoo.com> <3EAD18FC.7050108@stud.uni-graz.at> <20030428142223.GA3924@opus.davidb.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; furic:01 tni-valiosys:01 caml-list:01 siegfried:01 gonzi:01 recursion:01 abstraction:01 closures:01 smalltalk:01 ecrit:01 ocaml:01 labelled:01 lisp:01 0200,:01 side-effects:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk David Brown a écrit : > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 02:05:16PM +0200, Siegfried Gonzi wrote: > > > Lisp dialects, they have taken a purely functional approach. Today's > > Lisp dialects, foremostly Common Lisp, don't see any problems in making > > use of side effects, using iteration instead of recursion, using > > object-oriented abstraction if useful for the problem at hand, and so > > on. Just use the best abstraction for your current problem. > > So having feature in addition to functional features disqualifies a > language from being labelled. All of the accusations given certainly > apply to Ocaml as well. Having objects and side-effects doesn't seem to > stop me from doing functional programming. > > To me, the core feature of functional programming are first class > closures. Everything else just makes it more convenient. So Smalltalk is a functional language ;-) Maybe tail call optimisation has to be considered as a necessary feature for a langage to qualify ? > > Why someone would think using the best abstraction for your current > problem is a bad thing is beyond me. I think that is one of the > strengths of Ocaml, is that it can accomodate this so well. Agreed. Cheers, Sébastien ------------------- 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