From: "Krishnaswami, Neel" <neelk@cswcasa.com>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] A G'Caml question" + additional info
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:23:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <B1E4D3274D57D411BE8400D0B783FF322E8656@exchange1.cswv.com> (raw)
Markus Mottl [mailto:markus@mail4.ai.univie.ac.at] writes:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > But the language itself seems to be starting to rival C++ for sheer
> > complexity. When you want to do something you seem to have a choice
> > of using this feature, or *this* one, or *this* newly developed one.
>
> Having choices is not necessarily bad, being forced to using many
> alternatives is. I think that OCaml has succeeded quite well so far in
> keeping different features apart as one can see in the standard library,
> which can be used with the core language + modules alone. I hope this
> will stay so!
Permit me to disagree. I find nearly all of OCaml's features highly
useful and orthogonal, and I am only working on medium size projects.
For instance, I recently wrote yet another set implementation, because
the functorial interface to the Set module in the standard library
wouldn't let me use it in a fully polymorphic fashion. If the Set
library had been written using OCaml's object system, then I would
not have had to redo my own. From this experience I conclude that the
right thing is to use the features that offer the nicest degree of
modularity and reusability.
I can offer a demonstration if you are interested, but to illustrate
I'd need to show both approaches in about 75 lines of code, which may
be too much for a public email.
--
Neel Krishnaswami
neelk@cswcasa.com
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
next reply other threads:[~2001-07-11 22:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-07-11 22:23 Krishnaswami, Neel [this message]
2001-07-11 22:47 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-07-12 9:37 ` Markus Mottl
2001-07-14 2:04 ` John Max Skaller
2001-07-14 3:00 ` Alexander V. Voinov
2001-07-14 15:00 ` John Max Skaller
2001-07-11 23:10 Krishnaswami, Neel
2001-07-12 0:08 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-07-12 21:30 Krishnaswami, Neel
2001-07-13 9:34 ` Markus Mottl
2001-07-13 13:12 Krishnaswami, Neel
2001-07-13 13:35 ` Markus Mottl
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=B1E4D3274D57D411BE8400D0B783FF322E8656@exchange1.cswv.com \
--to=neelk@cswcasa.com \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
/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).