On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Eijiro Sumii <eijiro_sumii@anet.ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> > Perhaps his program is not good.  But he made a point. His
> > experience say something and I agree with many stuff he said.
> 
> I don't think he says _anything_ correct except trivial facts [...]

I agree with that.  The ./ post is a typical
I-don't-know-what-I-am-talking-about-so-I-say-it-loud !  If he made a
point I believe it is that it's easier to hit the "send" key than to
try to be a good programmer...

> As we can see from the careful wording at caml.inria.fr (both the
> new one and the old one), OCaml is *not* defined as a functional
> language.  In fact, it is good even at imperative/OO programming
> thanks to garbage collection, parametric polymorphism, data types,
> pattern matching, etc.!

In that vein, I like Doug Bagley koans.  Here is the one about HOF:

  A disciple who was a recent convert from another sect felt troubled
  by the teachings of his former master, who taught the dogma that
  only referentially transparent languages have Functional Nature. So
  he asks his new master, Pierre Weis: "Does OCaml have Functional
  Nature?", to which wise master replied: "HOF!" On hearing the
  mystical incantation, the new convert was enlightened.

My 2¢,
ChriS