Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] A G'Caml question" + additional info
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Alexander V. Voinov <avv@q...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] A G'Caml question" + additional info

John Max Skaller wrote:
> "Krishnaswami, Neel" wrote:
> > Permit me to disagree. I find nearly all of OCaml's features highly
> > useful and orthogonal, and I am only working on medium size projects.
> I don't find that is entirely true.
> First, there is quite a bit of sugar, such as fun/function/match,
> if then else vs. matching.
> I'm NOT complaining, just disagreeing.
> In my current project, I've been sticking to the basic
> feature set. But I'm stronly tempted to switch to polymorphic
> variants, because they'd provide much better typing for
> my application. ....

And in general, redundancy is certainly not an ontological evil when it
is properly structured. Otherwise we wouldn't make any use of poetry.

Bug reports:  FAQ:
To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: