On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 12:02, chris.danx wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>  Ocaml is my 
> choice for graphics because of it provides good performance and doesn't 
> pigeon hole the problem to an "imperative", "object orientated" or 
> "functional" solution.

Yes but if you look at the reason you can do this, you'll
find answers like 'sound type system', and then you can
start to use that as a way to judge the capabilities of
other languages.

in that case 'it meets my needs' isn't so much of an argument,
since the *real* requirement isn't that it meets you needs,
but that it meets you needs *and will continue to do so 
in the face of change*.

In other words to predict the true productivity benefits
of a language you really do need to examine the mathematical
fundamentals.

I don't have confidence in Ocaml *just* because it has
been able to do what I wanted, and still does,
but *also* because I trust the developers to extend it
in ways which mathematics predicts are sound and useful.

I have much sympathy for 'it works in practice, but
does it work in theory?' because in my exprience,
the pragmatic reality is that if it doesn't work
in theory -- you're just deluding yourself that
it actually does work in practice :)

-- 
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