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: | -- (:) |
| From: | Paul Snively <psnively@m...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Estimating the size of the ocaml community |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 3, 2005, at 1:16 PM, Thomas Fischbacher wrote: > (1) I by far do not have the flexibility in extending the language with > own syntax which I have in Lisp. > I have to respectfully disagree with this: IMHO, entirely too much is made of Lisp's macros (as distinct from Scheme's hygenic macros)! With camlp4, I have the ability to go from any concrete syntax I have an expander for to O'Caml's AST and back. This is used to good effect in Graydon Hoare's One Day Compiler presentation. > (2) Speaking of syntax, there's a lot of unnecessary cruft in virtually > any language besides LISP (or rather, Scheme). > Well, sure, given that in Lisp you're writing the AST by hand. :-) > (3) The type system is annoying. People claim it helps catching errors, > but my impression is it only catches those which I would never make > anyway. On the other hand, I cannot just have e.g. a function like > POSITION-IF that returns a number or nil. (Either one has to work with > exceptions, or wrap things up using the Maybe monad. Exception > techniques > may interfere badly with tail recursion in some cases.) > I guess I don't see the problem with "option" or variants. > (4) There are a few other minor issues, such as a lack of > multiple-value-bind, which I personally find slightly annoying, but > not essential. > I would agree with this. > (5) It does not behave as expected wrt module interfaces, as these > include > md5 sums over source. > This is a pain, yes, but given how powerful the module system is, and the fact that, e.g. inlining is done across modules, I'm willing to accept this. > (6) I cannot easily COMPILE a function to fast machine code from the > REPL. > You may wish to try "Nativize." It's in the Humps. > (7) I cannot easily (format t "DEBUG: compsite-thingy-bla-now-is ~A~%" > bla). > I don't quite follow; is there something wrong with Printf? > (8) There are quite some instances where Ocaml's syntax is > counter-intuitive to the extent of becoming a source of ugly mistakes, > due to interference with conventions people are used to from other > languages. I do not talk about (p,q) as x vs. x as (p,q) (or x@(p,q)) - > as everyone else (e.g. SML, Haskell) does it, but rather about issues > like for x=0 to 3 counting 0,1,2,3, or "\010" meaning "\x0a" instead of > "\x08", and such. > I was thrown by it for a while, too, but now I find it quite natural, and everything else doesn't seem to fit. Having said that, in my day job, "everything else" means C++. Enough said. :-) > (9) It really annoys having +, +., and +/. Furthermore, it seems a bit > inconsistent, as on the other hand, we have e.g. < and not </. > I think we all eagerly await G'Caml, don't we? > I know quite well that some people will consider some of these points > actually as "good" features, and think the "problems" I face can be > traced > back to me being quite misguided about programming in general. For > sure, I > should not expect Ocaml to be LISP, as it isn't. But I don't do that. > :-) > > It's only that I experienced a few things in LISP as quite nice, and > am a > little bit annoyed when I cannot use them. But only a little bit. ;-) > Still, Ocaml also has a few niceties that are missing in LISP. After > all, > it is still among my favourite languages. C++, Java, JavaScript > certainly > are not. > Amen, and thanks for the thorough, well-articulated points. > -- > 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) > > _______________________________________________ > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > Best regards, Paul Snively -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkICnpIACgkQO3fYpochAqLGqgCgopwZLe/i0GycSvfwSgRdTXPr b0oAnAk4latQbVfuHO/lchmm96rI7xA4 =gLb/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----