From: Paul Snively <psnively@mac.com>
To: skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Robert Morelli <morelli@cs.utah.edu>,
Kyle Consalus <consalus@gmail.com>,
caml-list@yquem.inria.fr, David MENTRE <david.mentre@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Some Clarifications
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:48:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6A3C1910-2846-43BB-BBDF-C17AD810B1BA@mac.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1122496415.6768.295.camel@localhost.localdomain>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 27, 2005, at 1:33 PM, skaller wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 09:37 -0600, Robert Morelli wrote:
>
>
>> My contention is simply that the program is incomplete; there's
>> more to be discovered by implementing more of mathematics. The
>> attitude that OCaml is some kind of pinnacle of language development,
>> already capable of dealing with all problems (and anyone who fails to
>> agree must simply be ignorant), is quite depressing to me.
>>
>
> Good heavens, no one here believes that!
Yes, that's quite a straw man. I'd also point out that examples like
Axiom and its Aldor language don't support the assertion that OO is
somehow better suited to the domain than FP is; on the contrary, they
point out that even today, the best research into the automation of
mathematics takes place in even richer functional languages with
richer type systems than O'Caml's. I think most of us on the list are
aware that, e.g. even plain ol' Haskell 98, with its typeclasses, has
some advantages over O'Caml, nevermind GHC 6.4 with its GADTs, and
nevermind Aldor or Cayenne or Epigram or DML or any of the other
languages with one kind or another of dependent types.
But as John said, many of us appreciate that O'Caml runs on several
platforms, generates plenty good-enough native code for many of those
targets most of the time, pays some attention to representation
issues in arrays and records, doesn't slavishly abstract from the
underlying hardware but is nevertheless memory safe, has a nice time-
travel debugger, a profiler for native code, syntactic extensibility
that rivals Lisp's, a rapidly growing set of impressive libraries,
good foreign-function interfaces, and a top-notch community. O'Caml
is the language that I think of as "the obvious alternative to C++,"
and I wouldn't hesitate to use it commercially on real-world
projects, if only it had bindings to Carbon or Cocoa on Mac OS X. :-)
Also, as others here have pointed out, O'Caml programmers aren't
necessarily averse to using objects when they actually buy us
something, but O'Caml doesn't use objects as an organizational
dumping ground the way C++ or Java do, since O'Caml has an actual
module system, parametric polymorphism, and higher-order functions
(yes, I know you know all of this). So perhaps your (Robert) argument
is better levied against Haskell programmers, or Concurrent Clean
programmers, or Standard ML programmers, than O'Caml programmers? In
any case, to the extent that your point is that O'Caml isn't the end
of the language design road, I think we're in vehement agreement.
However, if your argument is also that object-oriented languages
taken apart from features such as higher-order functions, module
systems, parametric polymorphism (or, these days, even with
parametric polymorphism bolted on), somehow have a clearer
evolutionary path than functional languages, I'll have to disagree
wholeheartedly. However, it's not clear to me, actually, what your
argument is at this point, so I'll stop here.
Best regards,
Paul Snively
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAkLoHTwACgkQO3fYpochAqJLKwCfSruR2rr1CxUGa2D4659yyzk1
4WEAoLh0FDRvr36r3Uaaw7DsveHN4nWo
=ufoe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-27 23:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-14 18:00 (Mostly) Functional Design? Kyle Consalus
2005-07-18 7:59 ` [Caml-list] " Robert Morelli
2005-07-18 9:22 ` Alex Baretta
[not found] ` <42DB78D3.7010401@andrej.com>
2005-07-18 10:01 ` Alex Baretta
2005-07-18 18:15 ` Robert Morelli
2005-07-18 18:45 ` Alex Baretta
2005-07-18 18:56 ` padiolea
2005-07-18 19:19 ` Jon Harrop
2005-07-18 19:38 ` Jon Harrop
2005-07-18 21:27 ` skaller
2005-07-18 21:55 ` Alwyn Goodloe
2005-07-18 22:16 ` Paul Snively
2005-07-19 0:45 ` Jonathan Bryant
2005-07-18 21:37 ` skaller
2005-07-18 22:00 ` Kenneth Oksanen
2005-07-18 9:29 ` Mark Meyers
2005-07-18 9:56 ` Large scale and FP (was: Re: [Caml-list] (Mostly) Functional Design?) David MENTRE
2005-07-18 18:11 ` Large scale and FP Robert Morelli
2005-07-18 14:08 ` [Caml-list] (Mostly) Functional Design? james woodyatt
2005-07-18 16:37 ` Alwyn Goodloe
2005-07-18 14:21 ` alphablock
2005-07-18 15:26 ` Alex Baretta
2005-07-18 15:38 ` alphablock
2005-07-18 17:17 ` Doug Kirk
2005-07-18 18:14 ` Alex Baretta
2005-07-19 7:42 ` james woodyatt
2005-07-19 9:35 ` Robert Morelli
2005-07-19 16:53 ` james woodyatt
2005-07-19 17:13 ` Paul Snively
2005-07-19 23:58 ` Jon Harrop
2005-07-20 0:29 ` Paul Snively
2005-07-18 18:23 ` padiolea
2005-07-18 19:45 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2005-07-18 22:16 ` skaller
2005-07-19 0:48 ` Chris Campbell
2005-07-19 20:14 ` Some Clarifications Robert Morelli
2005-07-20 6:18 ` [Caml-list] " Ville-Pertti Keinonen
2005-07-24 0:04 ` Robert Morelli
2005-07-24 2:30 ` Paul Snively
2005-07-24 7:37 ` Alex Baretta
2005-07-24 8:08 ` Robert Morelli
2005-07-24 12:23 ` David Teller
2005-07-24 18:29 ` skaller
2005-07-24 18:51 ` Paul Snively
2005-07-24 12:42 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2005-07-25 7:23 ` Ville-Pertti Keinonen
2005-07-20 7:34 ` David MENTRE
2005-07-27 15:37 ` Robert Morelli
2005-07-27 20:33 ` skaller
2005-07-27 23:48 ` Paul Snively [this message]
2005-07-20 16:28 ` Damien Doligez
2005-07-24 14:51 ` Robert Morelli
2005-07-24 16:11 ` David MENTRE
2005-07-25 12:21 ` Damien Doligez
2005-07-25 15:47 ` Richard Jones
2005-07-22 5:18 ` [Caml-list] (Mostly) Functional Design? Marius Nita
2005-07-27 9:38 [Caml-list] Some Clarifications Don Syme
2005-07-27 10:58 ` Jon Harrop
2005-07-27 11:55 ` Robert Roessler
2005-07-27 14:01 ` Richard Jones
2005-07-28 0:29 ` Robert Roessler
2005-07-27 18:42 ` skaller
2005-07-27 13:36 ` David Thomas
2005-07-27 13:53 ` Ville-Pertti Keinonen
2005-07-27 16:23 ` james woodyatt
2005-07-27 14:32 David Thomas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6A3C1910-2846-43BB-BBDF-C17AD810B1BA@mac.com \
--to=psnively@mac.com \
--cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
--cc=consalus@gmail.com \
--cc=david.mentre@gmail.com \
--cc=morelli@cs.utah.edu \
--cc=skaller@users.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).