...but the OCaml team didn't write that stuff, they just put them up on
their site! As one of the commenters on that site, I did a fairly lengthy
comparison of languages including SML and OCaml among about a dozen others
and finally settled on OCaml for its speed, ease of foreign function
integration, type safety, available documentation, and terseness of
expression.

My first real trial of OCaml was a very complicated numeric analysis of
optical performance. I worked for two solid weeks in another language and it
still didn't quite work correctly. After three intense days with OCaml,
including writing a bunch of supporting C code to handle graphical displays,
I managed to get an analysis program that worked correctly the first time
out of the chute -- no debugging necessary!

Cheers,

David McClain, Sr. Scientist, Raytheon Systems Co., Tucson, AZ

-----Original Message-----
From: Gabriel Dos_Reis <gdosreis@korrigan.inria.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ml
To: comp-lang-ml@moderators.isc.org <comp-lang-ml@moderators.isc.org>
Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: SML/NJ versus O'Caml


>"Mattias Waldau" <mattias.waldau@tacton.com> writes:
>
>| I found this information myself:
>|
>| http://pauillac.inria.fr/caml/users_comments-fra.html
>|
>| and it is very positive about O'Caml.
>
>No offense intended, but given the address the contrary would have
>surprised me :-)
>
>-- Gaby
>