From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D359CBC75 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:33:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de (mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de [192.54.42.129]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1E9XfeE025010 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:33:41 +0100 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D21320030; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:33:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 31285-01-41; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:33:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from mailhost.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (kaiser.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de [141.84.136.1]) by mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70FD420029; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:33:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de [141.84.136.54]) by mailhost.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EAD126E87; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:33:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix, from userid 3092) id 873083D96; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:33:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839A92D717; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:33:20 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:33:20 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Fischbacher To: skaller Cc: Michael Walter , Daniel Heck , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The boon of static type checking In-Reply-To: <1108347745.2584.208.camel@pelican.wigram> Message-ID: References: <877e9a17050206221653d14456@mail.gmail.com> <877e9a17050212145737cc30d6@mail.gmail.com> <200502131451.02231.edgin@slingshot.co.nz> <20050213112630.73930e19@hobbes> <877e9a1705021312525337a907@mail.gmail.com> <877e9a1705021314512ff095b9@mail.gmail.com> <1108347745.2584.208.camel@pelican.wigram> X-BOFH: Daemons did it MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at physik.uni-muenchen.de X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 42107075.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 wrote:01 syntax:01 syntax:01 cip:98 cip:98 lambda:01 lambda:01 arbitrary:01 precisely:01 checking:01 debian:02 physik:02 physik:02 gnu:03 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, skaller wrote: > > So, again, syntax is not by itself an essential feature of the language. > > Sure it is: it is what distinguishes the system from a > mere library. But that's precisely the issue! There is many a system around out there, take FORM, take GAP, take LiE, take R, take whatever you want, that provides highly specialized functionality in form of a language, whereas it would be 20 times more useful to have it in form of a library. I saw colleagues in string theory wrapping LiE up with expect, just to make it scriptable. As if a string theorist should have to waste his time with such nonsense. My point is: a library in virtually any case is much more valuable than a new language. Syntax is just make-up. Superficial, arbitrary, vain. What really makes up the character of a language happens beneath. Say what you want, I consider it as grossly misguided to invent a new language just to have "something greater than a mere library". -- regards, tf@cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (o_ Thomas Fischbacher - http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf //\ (lambda (n) ((lambda (p q r) (p p q r)) (lambda (g x y) V_/_ (if (= x 0) y (g g (- x 1) (* x y)))) n 1)) (Debian GNU)