* 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'm interested in the genesis of the object
system, though, and if the structural similarity to the Objective C
effort by Brad Cox is just a coincidence, or was deliberate.

(There is a significant difference, though, because Objective Caml
uses static type checks to ensure that every message has a receiver.)