Re: [Caml-list] Re: Camlp4 optimizations (was: productivity improvement)

[Chris Hecker <checker@d6.com>]

> > I'm amazed that people who are interested in high level languages are
> > asking these questions (not to attack you personally, just the overall
> > attitude)!
>Developers won't learn a new language with a reputation of inefficiency...
>Yes, this is marketing and not logical- so what?

Huh?

1. We were never discussing taking the blas-style syntax out of the 
language (you couldn't, it's just function calls).  We were discussing 
adding a feature that would allow the expression-style syntax.  If you're 
saying that there shouldn't be any features in a language which can be 
misused to write slow code or something else of that nature, then every 
real language fails on that front.

2. This mailing list is not for marketing caml to each other (although the 
latest thread resurrection about C++ might belie that statement).  I have 
already chosen to use caml, as have most of the people on this list.  I was 
pointing out a way in which caml could be better to that audience, and was 
surprised at the response.

Anyway, this is getting silly.  Overloading (operators and functions) would 
help when writing certain kinds of programs, and I hope it gets added to 
the language.  Allowing infix function specification (instead of just 
operators) would be nice as well for these same kinds of programs, but it 
is not nearly as important (and it can be handled by camlp4 just fine).

Is there any news on the GCaml experiment from last year?

Chris
-------------------
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