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 NAA03517; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:32:32 +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 NAA04085 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:32:31 +0200 (MET DST) 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 NAA02236 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:06:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from afb-nts8.afblakemore.com (phoenix.afblakemore.com [195.173.164.10]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9IB6J520528 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:06:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by afb-nts8.afblakemore.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4GBW436S>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:04:37 +0100 Message-ID: <96F3E9BC6D1ED31194EB00105AC2F0030266E232@afb-nts8.afblakemore.com> From: David Wildgoose To: "'pragprog@yahoogroups.com'" , caml-list@inria.fr Cc: ocaml_beginners@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Caml-list] RE: [pragprog] Is Caml a fraud ( especially on Windows )? Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:04:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk ===> See below > -----Original Message----- > From: olczyk@interaccess.com [SMTP:olczyk@interaccess.com] > Sent: 18 October 2002 10:36 > To: caml-list@inria.fr > Cc: pragprog@yahoogroups.com; ocaml_beginners@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [pragprog] Is Caml a fraud ( especially on Windows )? > > When I chose to learn OCaml as my "language of the year" it seemed > like a good choice. > > ===> It is. > I had some basic requirements for a language: > 1) There be a free ( for noncommercial use ) implementation. ( Having > more people know a language is a plus for that language. I don't > think it is appropriate for implementors to ask for money for the > right to learn their language. Once you are actually making money > > using a language is a different thing. ) > 2) The implementation has to produce stand alone applications. ( > Scripting languages are OK. As long as the interpreter is free. > > ) Part of the processes of learning is to write applications. To > save time I want to write applications that I need around the > house. I use "database of MP3s" as the prototypical application. > 3) The implementation have a generally complete library. Everything > from matrix library to internet libraries. > 4) The implementation must run on both Linux and Windows. I don't > want to have to rewrite applications just because they run on > different platforms. I don't want two different implementations, > as often the portability is poor. > 5) The standalones run fairly efficiently. One thing I want to do ( > my final exam, so to speak ) is use the implementation for ICFP. > Usually there is a soft limit on speed of executable. Also many > of the applications I write tend to be CPU intensive. > 6) A debugger is not required but considered a big plus. > 7) An emacs mode for the language. > 8) A good FFI. > > ===> Fair enough. > Caml pretty much seemed to meet all these conditions. Further > it seemed like a gateway into the world of ( more advanced ) FPLs > like Haskell, Curry, Clean etc. > > ===> More advanced? In what way? They follow different paradigms, e.g. lazy/eager evaluation, but that doesn't necessarily make one more advanced than another. > But then I started to do preliminary studies. Since I was busy with > other things it would be about 2 months before I could start to > seriously study it. In the mean time I was going to set up the > programming environments in my spare time. > > The first thing that happened was a comment made in the Caml > mailing list. The comment basically said that I was making a mistake > starting with Caml because it was so "special" that I would never go > onto the next language. I found this to be a terribly worrying > comment. Especially since it came from one of the OCaml developers. > > Often times when you see proponents say things like this, you soon > discover the emperor has no clothes. Such statements are often made > by people who lack diversity of experience in other programming > languages. > > This causes a certain sort of tunnel vision in the way they perceive > things. Tools like debuggers are overestimated in their capabilities. > Languages features are touted way beyond their benefit. > > ==> Yes, I've seen what you've posted. Here are some examples: "No. I am asking for a sample program. Can't you read, but then from the rest of the post I can see that you are not very intelligent." "A lot of shit about how great functional programming is but all slogans no substance. " "Are there any people out there who are not language zealots who know what they are talking about and understand higher order functions?" and "Are you realy that stupid?" - to which I can only suggest that the person you were insulting isn't, but you certainly seem to be. I won't bother commenting on the rest of your diatribe. ------------------- 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