From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr 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 D6765BC69 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:48:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.6]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l7LFm4ht005580 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:48:06 +0200 Received: (qmail 13419 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2007 15:48:03 -0000 Received: from shell2.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.116.3]) (envelope-sender ) by mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 21 Aug 2007 15:48:03 -0000 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:48:03 -0700 (PDT) From: brogoff To: skaller Cc: Oliver Bandel , Caml-list List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] If OCaml were a car In-Reply-To: <1187657274.18344.9.camel@rosella.wigram> Message-ID: References: <20070818192157.GA11789@furbychan.cocan.org> <6806cf750708181324l724823c6w304f9088980c3316@mail.gmail.com> <46C76557.5050308@cs.caltech.edu> <56864F61-40F3-4F03-9823-6D510AD5320B@epfl.ch> <1187639685.46c9f1859d769@webmail.in-berlin.de> <1187657274.18344.9.camel@rosella.wigram> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 46CB0934.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 0200,:01 bandel:01 ocaml's:01 ocaml:01 syntax:01 2007,:98 refusal:98 trusting:98 imho:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 oliver:01 speakeasy:01 caml-list:01 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