Browse thread
Estimating the size of the ocaml community
-
Yaron Minsky
-
Christopher A. Watford
-
Frédéric_Gava
-
skaller
-
Erik de Castro Lopo
- Olivier_Pérès
-
Thomas Fischbacher
-
Frédéric_Gava
-
Thomas Fischbacher
- Paul Snively
- josh
- Richard Jones
-
Jon Harrop
-
Michael Walter
-
Jon Harrop
- Damien Doligez
- Thomas Fischbacher
- Michael Walter
-
Radu Grigore
- Gerd Stolpmann
- Jon
-
Jon Harrop
- Thomas Fischbacher
- Richard Jones
-
Michael Walter
- Ville-Pertti Keinonen
- Oliver Bandel
- Basile STARYNKEVITCH
-
Thomas Fischbacher
- ronniec95@l...
- skaller
- chris.danx
-
Frédéric_Gava
-
Erik de Castro Lopo
- sejourne_kevin
- Stefano Zacchiroli
-
skaller
-
Frédéric_Gava
- Kenneth Knowles
- Michael Jeffrey Tucker
- Richard Jones
- Nicolas Cannasse
- Evan Martin
- Eric Stokes
- chris.danx
- Sylvain LE GALL
- sejourne_kevin
- Sven Luther
- Johann Spies
-
Christopher A. Watford
[
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: | 2005-02-14 (09:33) |
From: | Thomas Fischbacher <Thomas.Fischbacher@P...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] The boon of static type checking |
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, skaller wrote: > > So, again, syntax is not by itself an essential feature of the language. > > Sure it is: it is what distinguishes the system from a > mere library. But that's precisely the issue! There is many a system around out there, take FORM, take GAP, take LiE, take R, take whatever you want, that provides highly specialized functionality in form of a language, whereas it would be 20 times more useful to have it in form of a library. I saw colleagues in string theory wrapping LiE up with expect, just to make it scriptable. As if a string theorist should have to waste his time with such nonsense. My point is: a library in virtually any case is much more valuable than a new language. Syntax is just make-up. Superficial, arbitrary, vain. What really makes up the character of a language happens beneath. Say what you want, I consider it as grossly misguided to invent a new language just to have "something greater than a mere library". -- regards, tf@cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (o_ Thomas Fischbacher - http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf //\ (lambda (n) ((lambda (p q r) (p p q r)) (lambda (g x y) V_/_ (if (= x 0) y (g g (- x 1) (* x y)))) n 1)) (Debian GNU)