On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 22:55 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Martin Chabr:
> 
> > --- Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> >
> >> I was a bit surprised when I started playing with Caml objects.  I
> >> couldn't find a definite reference, but it seems that the object
> >> system was indeed inspired by the "Objective" family of languages
> >> (the "evolutionary approach" to add a Smalltalk-like object system
> >> described by Brad Cox in the 80s, later picked up by NeXT).  Is
> >> this really the case?  Or is the similarity just a coincidence?
> >
> > The object oriented part of OCaml is roughly speaking
> > just as capable as that of Python, C++, Java, C# etc.
> 
> Sure, I don't doubt that. 

I do. The Python system is much more 'capable' and much less 'robust'.
This is typical for dynamic typing vs static typing.

-- 
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net