Browse thread
[Caml-list] Dynamically evaluating OCaml code
-
John Goerzen
- Vitaly Lugovsky
- Samuel Mimram
-
Basile Starynkevitch
-
Issac Trotts
- Dustin Sallings
-
Brian Hurt
- Oleg Trott
- Ville-Pertti Keinonen
-
John Goerzen
-
Markus Mottl
-
Richard Jones
-
Markus Mottl
- Jon Harrop
-
John Goerzen
- Jean-Marc EBER
-
Trevor Andrade
-
Gerd Stolpmann
- skaller
-
John Goerzen
-
Gerd Stolpmann
-
Christophe TROESTLER
-
Gerd Stolpmann
-
Christophe TROESTLER
- Brandon J. Van Every
- John Goerzen
- Jacques GARRIGUE
-
Christophe TROESTLER
-
Gerd Stolpmann
-
Christophe TROESTLER
- Matt Gushee
-
Gerd Stolpmann
- Benjamin Geer
-
Gerd Stolpmann
- skaller
-
Markus Mottl
- John Goerzen
- Jon Harrop
-
Richard Jones
- Fernando Alegre
- Jean-Marc EBER
- Kenneth Knowles
- Brian Hurt
- skaller
-
Markus Mottl
- Issac Trotts
- Basile Starynkevitch
-
Issac Trotts
- clement capel
- Jon Harrop
- Walid Taha
[
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: | -- (:) |
| From: | Jon Harrop <jdh30@c...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Dynamically evaluating OCaml code |
On Thursday 08 April 2004 3:56 pm, Markus Mottl wrote: > On Thu, 08 Apr 2004, John Goerzen wrote: > > Similar complaints exist for working with subsets of lists; it's really > > too hard to say "replace elements 4 through 9 with this", "delete > > elements 4 through 9", "return elements 4 through 9", etc. > > Yes, it's hard to do this with the current standard library. The question > is: who needs these functions anyway? I can't remember ever having felt > a need for them. I could do with them! There are numerous such functions (and nice implementations, like "List.nth -1 l" fetching the last element, more powerful flatten etc.) which Mathematica has and which I miss. > > (While we're at it, I think it's silly that there is a list and an > > array type). > > I beg your pardon - what else do you have in mind??? Yes, what the hell are you talking about? ;-) > > This library problem hurts productivity, and in some cases makes OCaml > > less productive than even C. > > Things are not half as bad as you describe them here. There may be > cases where C is more productive - because you happen to have a library > function for the problem. But even in this case you can just interface > to C, which is really not that difficult. I wouldn't describe using multiple languages, multiple compilers, adding new source files, object files and writing code to transform ocaml's internal representations into those necessary for the language and back again as "really not that difficult". Quite the contrary, in fact, I have found it to be "quite difficult". I certainly wouldn't expect Jo User, whilst evaluating ocaml as yet another new language, to have to implement safe interfaces to common functions found in a language he/she already knows just to get a working program. > There are surely cases where the OCaml standard library lacks generally > useful functionality, but it's usually good enough for most problems. Yes, it is currently sufficeable. Cheers, Jon. ------------------- 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