At 9:22 AM -0700 7/11/01, Brian Rogoff wrote:
>G'Caml also has dynamics, so I imagine we'll be seeing other disaffected
>Dylanites dallying with it too ;-).

I'm not sure about that.

Caml's primary interest for me is that it is mature and extremely 
well implemented.

But the language itself seems to be starting to rival C++ for sheer 
complexity. When you want to do something you seem to have a choice 
of using this feature, or *this* one, or *this* newly developed one.

Dylan is conceptually a much simpler language, with less intimidating 
syntax, and you can easily express what you want to do using a very 
small number of basic constructs.  It depends on the compiler to find 
the way in which a particular use of a particular construct is not 
making use of the full generality and thus can be optimized, so it 
does require quite complex compilers to get speed.  Dylan's biggest 
problem has been the fickleness of corporate development efforts, 
compared to the constancy of INRIA over a very long period.

For which they are to be congratulated, of course!

-- Bruce
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr