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 SAA04259; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:15:12 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 SAA04361 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:15:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from grace.speakeasy.org (grace.speakeasy.org [216.254.0.2]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id g9HGFAD15778 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:15:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 7963 invoked by uid 36130); 17 Oct 2002 16:15:09 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Oct 2002 16:15:09 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:15:09 -0700 (PDT) From: brogoff@speakeasy.net To: "Caml-list@inria.fr" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] productivity improvement In-Reply-To: <200210171055.05646.jeffrey.palmer@acm.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Jeffrey Palmer wrote: > Hello all. I have a request. > > Can we please cease the C++ flamefest? Some of us are not able to choose > our implementation language quite as easily as others, and, frankly, > endless discussions about language X's failings just irritate the > people that are forced to use X daily. Making blanket statements like > "language X clearly isn't good for anything" is just ridiculous - > nothing is ever that clear cut. Right, it's also kind of silly because OCaml is an imperative language, so flames like "imperative languages suck" belong on the Haskell, Clean, and Mercury mailing lists, but not here! > If we were to talk about the aspects of C++ (or Java, or ...) that we > could apply to ocaml, that might be a different story (there might not > be many!) Sure, you've probably nailed the most popular one, which is doing C++ style compilation by monomorphizing everything. I doubt this will happen in OCaml because it is a research vehicle for research in language design, and that implementation strategy makes lots of things hard in a language like OCaml. This where the "Standard" in SML is somewhat meaningful, as some researchers in that community have focused on those kind of optimizations. There was a recent thread on this, here http://caml.inria.fr/archives/200202/msg00055.html -- Brian ------------------- 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