From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B42ABB91 for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:04:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j6O04m9p031886 for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:04:48 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.4] (c-24-10-253-157.hsd1.ut.comcast.net[24.10.253.157]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20050724000446013006ou57e>; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:04:47 +0000 Message-ID: <42E2DB1E.2010508@cs.utah.edu> Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:04:46 -0600 From: Robert Morelli User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ville-Pertti Keinonen Cc: Kyle Consalus , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Some Clarifications References: <9cc3782b05071411004b27b6a4@mail.gmail.com> <42DB6161.4030507@cs.utah.edu> <42DD5F41.8060801@cs.utah.edu> <42DDECC6.8010209@exomi.com> In-Reply-To: <42DDECC6.8010209@exomi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 42E2DB20.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; morelli:01 morelli:01 caml-list:01 erlang:01 variants:01 ocaml:01 criticizing:01 ocaml's:01 crave:98 functional:02 confused:02 puzzled:02 concurrent:02 explanation:03 context:04 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 To be entirely frank, I am put off by the style of your comments. If you disagree with my answer to the subject of this discussion, you should point the original poster to what you think is a discussion of large scale functional design, or present your own explanation for why it doesn't exist. I would be genuinely interested in what you have to say. But instead, you have chosen to veer off into rhetoric, advocacy, and ad hominem distractions. I am puzzled by your citing points about Erlang and concurrent variants of ML that sound superficially to be relevant, but which have no real bearing on anything I said. I disagree with the frequent use of this mailing list to irrationally promote OCaml as a superior language to Java. It is not an advocacy forum, and I will not be drawn into criticizing OCaml's object system in this context. When I crave irrational discussions, I visit slashdot. I am disappointed that you have resorted to ad hominem distractions, projecting knowledge or "feelings" on me of issues outside of, and irrelevant to, what I stated, and which do not represent my own feelings or anything I wish to discuss here. In case you, or anyone else, is genuinely confused by what I said, I will make a further clarification in a separate post.