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 KAA27896; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:29:38 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id KAA28182 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:29:38 +0200 (MET DST) 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 BAA16882 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 01:04:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from relay.pair.com (relay1.pair.com [209.68.1.20]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id g9HN4DD22521 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 01:04:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 50195 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2002 23:04:12 -0000 Received: from node-d8e9cca2-sfo-onnet.worldcom.com (HELO checkerlap.d6.com) (216.233.204.162) by relay1.pair.com with SMTP; 17 Oct 2002 23:04:12 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 216.233.204.162 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20021017154847.02e40318@mail.d6.com> X-Sender: checker@mail.d6.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:03:57 -0700 To: Ocaml Mailing List From: Chris Hecker Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Camlp4 optimizations (was: productivity improvement) In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021017130323.02dbb068@mail.d6.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > > 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