English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[oliver: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity]
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-03-13 (16:35)
From: Michael Schuerig <schuerig@a...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity
On Thursday 13 March 2003 15:39, Oliver Bandel wrote:

> Well, in GUIs there OO does makes sense.
> But using a more functional approach might help here too.

Yes, "might". But apparently, there's currently no rational reason to 
prefer FP over OO for GUIs. 

> For GUIs OO might be a good choice; but as long as it is
> not tested that FP doesn't help here, I will insist on
> such a solution.

If your mind is set for adventure, you can hope for it and go FP full 
hog. As a general advices this would be irresponsible.

> > [Typical database + GUI enterprise applications]
> >
> > > > Could OCaml in this area bring such a big improvement
> > > > over, say, Java and J2EE?
> > >
> > > See above.
> >
> > No, unfortunately not. You speculate a lot, but don't provide any
> > usable solutions.
> When there are hundreds of FP-programmers do not offer solutions
> (not counted the one haskell-approach),
> and many-thousands of OO-programmers are throwing around their
> OO-mess, how should I (not computer science studied; have studied
> electrical engeneering) provide a solution?

(1) Would you be able to distinguish a good OO-solution _that you don't 
understand_ from a bad OO-solution?
(2) Don't expect good OO to be any easier than good FP.
(3) There *are* good OO-solutions for UI programming. Why are you 
convinced that there are even better FP ones? Currently there don't 
seem to be, otherwise I'd like to learn about them. Ideally, such an FP 
solution would be not only just as good as the OO counterpart, but 
instead would be markedly better. It's not much help, if one can say, 
"Look, finally I can do just the same as you".

> When looking at the code, I know what's good and wrong,

> Writing in FP is like having functions, that behave
> determined; when looking at OO-stuff, it looks like
> a stochastical process.

Are you comparing code that does the same? Same task? Same complexity?

> > Being important is an interesting property in a research context.
> > It doesn't make a language popular.
> I'm now a t a point, where the popularity is not so much a matter
> to me. I want to learn and to use that language.
> If other people want not, it's their problem.

Ah, well, but this thread is not concerned with you personally. It 
started with someone's wish of OCaml being more popular. I guess, the 
point I'm trying to make is that FP/OCaml won't become more popular in 
an area where it's only just as good as established OO languages and 

> If you had asked me this in the beginnings of my OCaml-
> journey, I would have said (and I had said that), that
> I think, that OCaml might be good for larger projects,
> but not for scrippting.
> But even there it is better!

So, then let's push it there.


Michael Schuerig                All good people read good books
mailto:schuerig@acm.org         Now your conscience is clear
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ --Tanita Tikaram, "Twist In My Sobriety"

To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners