Browse thread
Re: convincing management to switch to Ocaml
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | John Skaller <skaller@m...> |
| Subject: | Re: convincing management to switch to Ocaml |
At 15:03 31/08/99 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: >Caml (like SML and Pascal and C and ...) has taken the point of view >that begin/end entities should not be made mandatory if they are >unambiguously unneeded. I can only agree with that point of view: >why should I say > > if a then (1) else (2) > >? Why not: if a then q else 2 fi >You could also try to rely on your programming environment to >help you. I do. (But I'm using Vim :-) >> (fun x -> print_endline ..) >> is ugly compared to: >> begin fun x -> print_endline .. end > >Aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder. This is very true, and a fundamental problem for publishing. Intent is important too: what works fine on my screen is not quite the same as what looks good on paper. >> but the ideal would be >> fun x is print_endline .. efun > >Plop! Yet another reserved keyword! .. which is not good, I agree. >Syntax is one of those things that you just can't get right. There is some truth in that, however, many would claim that, for example, the syntax of C++ or Perl, compared with say Python, is indeed superior. ------------------------------------------------------- John Skaller email: skaller@maxtal.com.au http://www.maxtal.com.au/~skaller phone: 61-2-96600850 snail: 10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe NSW 2037, Australia