Browse thread
Re: Why OCaml sucks
-
Jon Harrop
- Matthew William Cox
- Arthur Chan
- Tom_PrimožiÄ
- Elliott Oti
- Richard Jones
-
David Teller
-
Jon Harrop
- David Teller
-
Jeff Polakow
-
Jon Harrop
- Berke Durak
- Richard Jones
-
Jon Harrop
-
Jon Harrop
- Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
- Vincent Hanquez
- Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
- Kuba Ober
- Kuba Ober
[
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: | Richard Jones <rich@a...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks |
On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 07:09:57PM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote: > F# has long since overtaken all other functional languages in terms of > industrial uptake and I have not heard that complaint from anyone. Like > OCaml, it follows simple rules and is predictable as a consequence. Figures to back up this extraordinary claim? (And I don't mean the unverifiable figures of a certain Cambridge-based consultancy). These commercial enterprises better hope they don't need to modify the F# compiler at all, and that MS keep releasing new versions and fixes forever, because the terms of the F# license would prevent them from fixing it themselves (unlike if they'd decided to go with an open source solution). Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat