Browse thread
[Caml-list] [ANN] The Missing Library
-
John Goerzen
-
Kenneth Knowles
- Alexander V. Voinov
-
John Goerzen
-
Maxence Guesdon
-
John Goerzen
- Maxence Guesdon
-
John Goerzen
-
Alain.Frisch@e...
-
John Goerzen
-
Alain.Frisch@e...
-
Nicolas Cannasse
-
Yamagata Yoriyuki
- Gerd Stolpmann
-
Nicolas Cannasse
-
Yamagata Yoriyuki
- Jacques GARRIGUE
- Nicolas Cannasse
-
Yamagata Yoriyuki
-
Yamagata Yoriyuki
-
Nicolas Cannasse
- oliver@f...
-
Alain.Frisch@e...
-
John Goerzen
- Henri DF
- Shawn Wagner
- james woodyatt
-
Alain.Frisch@e...
- Basile STARYNKEVITCH
-
John Goerzen
- Kenneth Knowles
- Florian Hars
-
Maxence Guesdon
- Eric C. Cooper
-
Kenneth Knowles
[
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: | 2004-04-26 (18:25) |
From: | Benjamin Geer <ben@s...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Re: Proposal: community standard library project |
Jacques GARRIGUE wrote: > ocaml gives you many ways to define an API for any > functionality. And does not try to decide which is better. So you can > only end up with duplicate libraries, according to personal tastes. I don't mind whether a standard library uses classes or functors, or both; what I care about is that different parts of it should be able to interact easily with each other. Therefore I'm delighted to see the discussion currently going on about integrating I/O channels across ExtLib, Camomile and ocamlnet. It seems to me that different styles are suited to different situations. For example, I think most people, regardless of their preferred programming style, would agree that you made the right choice by using an object-oriented style for LablGTK. Someone who wants a Caml interface to GTK will almost certainly be happy to adapt to the style you chose. Moreover, the same issue exists (though perhaps to a lesser extent) in many popular languages. C++, for example, supports object-oriented and generic styles. Lisp supports functional and object-oriented styles. Python supports imperative, object-oriented and functional styles. I'm sure that, with sufficient goodwill, discussions like the ones going on now can lead to solutions that most people will be satisfied with. > The 3rd point, I would rather see it as having more > meta-documentation, ie information on libraries without having to > download and install: requirements, extensiveness, quality of the > documentation, user reviews... Perhaps eventually GODI could support that kind of information. Ben ------------------- 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