Browse thread
(Mostly) Functional Design?
[
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: | 2005-07-24 (00:04) |
From: | Robert Morelli <morelli@c...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Some Clarifications |
To be entirely frank, I am put off by the style of your comments. If you disagree with my answer to the subject of this discussion, you should point the original poster to what you think is a discussion of large scale functional design, or present your own explanation for why it doesn't exist. I would be genuinely interested in what you have to say. But instead, you have chosen to veer off into rhetoric, advocacy, and ad hominem distractions. I am puzzled by your citing points about Erlang and concurrent variants of ML that sound superficially to be relevant, but which have no real bearing on anything I said. I disagree with the frequent use of this mailing list to irrationally promote OCaml as a superior language to Java. It is not an advocacy forum, and I will not be drawn into criticizing OCaml's object system in this context. When I crave irrational discussions, I visit slashdot. I am disappointed that you have resorted to ad hominem distractions, projecting knowledge or "feelings" on me of issues outside of, and irrelevant to, what I stated, and which do not represent my own feelings or anything I wish to discuss here. In case you, or anyone else, is genuinely confused by what I said, I will make a further clarification in a separate post.