Re: [Caml-list] If OCaml were a car

[brogoff <brogoff@speakeasy.net>]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, skaller wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 21:54 +0200, Oliver Bandel wrote:
>
> > Compared to that the discussions on OCaml's defficiencies are
> > incomprehensible to me.

Since we're dealing with analogies, you could say Perl is like some
hideous disfigured mutant leper. Really, who is going to notice a
few warts on that? OCaml is a puclchritudinous visage pocked with
some blemishes.

> Unfortunately not so. The syntax is only a minor issue IMHO.

Minor for you, but for less expert programmers, or those new to or
infrequent OCaml users, they weight the decision "OCaml or Other"
in the wrong direction.

> There are a number of other annoyances. But the major issues are:
>
> (1.a) lack of dynamic loading (of native code)
>     -- hopefully to be fixed in 3.11
>
> (1.b) lack of multi-processing
>
> (2.a) interoperability
>     -- with C libraries
>     -- with .NET libraries (F# isn't Ocaml)
>
> (2.b) refusal of Inria team to provide a more complete library
>
> (3) lack of ISO or ECMA standardisation
>
> We who use Ocaml are patient (fixes 1),
> creative (fixes 2), and trusting (fixes 3),
> which are three properties industry does not have.

Note that none of your issues are about the language itself, except
(1.b).

Different industries have different priorities, and a few of your
annoyances are  of no concern to me, as I imagine some of mine don't
bother you.

-- Brian