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 JAA24793; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:45:47 +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 JAA25042 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:45:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3Q7jijq024504 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:45:45 +0200 X-Sasl-enc: 9OwBn0XPr+sLQZBMlWC2qw 1082965414 Received: from [192.168.1.100] (unknown [218.81.125.232]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A07B9AA2F14; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:43:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:43:21 +0800 (HKT) From: Martin Jambon X-X-Sender: martin@localhost To: Jacques GARRIGUE Cc: ben@socialtools.net, Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Proposal: community standard library project In-Reply-To: <20040426.104521.68535941.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Miltered: at = by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 jacques:01 api:01 interfacing:01 tolerate:01 maison:99 wrappers:01 explicitely:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 garrigue:01 modules:02 objects:02 jambon:02 jambon:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Jacques GARRIGUE wrote: > Why? Because ocaml gives you many ways to define an API for any > functionality. And does not try to decide which is better. So you can > only end up with duplicate libraries, according to personal tastes. > Not only there are plenty of duplicate libraries around, but I'm sure > that many ocaml programmers prefer to create their own private library > rather than using some available one. > > You can be functional or imperative, use optional arguments or not, > use objects or modules, etc... > Even interfacing a C library can be done in many different ways... So, we can have maybe one "standard OO library" or a "standard ???-style library". Users like to follow only one simple and precise paradigm. Users will not tolerate exceptions to The Paradigm. (Citation des Inconnus : « la devise de la maison : ne jamais prendre les gens pour des cons, mais ne pas oublier qu'ils le sont. ») OCaml is great because developers may choose between several programming styles, but I think that the interface of a library must explicitely follow only one style. This is true for any library, standard or not. It might sometimes require Caml-styleA to Caml-styleB wrappers... Martin ------------------- 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