Re: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial ObjectionTo O'Caml

From: Max Skaller (maxs@in.ot.com.au)
Date: Fri Jun 09 2000 - 04:30:05 MET DST

  • Next message: David Chemouil: "polymorphic variants"

    Brent Fulgham wrote:
    >
    > > BTW: people here read books. An English Ocaml book
    > > would provide very strong support for industrial use.
    > >
    > I'm in the process of reading "The Functional Approach
    > to Programming" (Cousineau & Mauny). This book is not
    > strictly OCaml

    That's part of the problem. People here are short of time:
    while education in functional programming techniques is
    useful, a description of Ocaml is more pointed: remember,
    Ocaml is _not_ a functional programming language, but an
    Algol like language with functional, procedural, and object
    oriented components... just like C++.

    In ocaml, the 'orientation' is more functional, but the biggest
    obstacle isn't the functional paradigm as such, but the actual
    concrete syntax used.

    -- 
    John (Max) Skaller at OTT [Open Telecommications Ltd]
    mailto:maxs@in.ot.com.au      -- at work
    mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au  -- at home
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 09 2000 - 19:36:29 MET DST