Browse thread
[Caml-list] C++ STL and template features compared with OCaml parametric polymorphism and OO features
[
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: | skaller <skaller@u...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] C++ STL and template features compared with OCaml parametric polymorphism and OO features |
On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 01:08, sejourne_kevin wrote: > skaller wrote: > > Sure but Ocaml offers other advantages such as type inference > > lacking in C++ that make code more concise -- as well > > as nice scoping constructs, lexical scoping, higher > > order functions, variants, and garbage collection. > > [Did I miss something .. ? :] > Functors? Ocaml's modular functors are harder to use and more verbose the C++ templates, so I didn't include them. You have to instantiate them manually, and also declare interfaces etc. Of course for more complex constructions they're probably better (because they're more modular). OTOH Ocaml does have a second kind of type functor -- (polymorphic type constructors) which are *easier* to use than C++ templates. Eg: List is a module functor, and list is a one of the simpler type functors. (Also for hashtable, which provides a simple type functor and a modular functor parameterised on the key type (but the value type is still a type variable .. :) -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- 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