]> John Max Skaller wrote: > > [ Information about Felix ] I have read about Felix on this list several times. I will look into it when I get a chance. > Well, Ocaml has some problems too. > I sometime want to give up on it too. > For example: there is no dynamic loading, which is very serious. > I really must have that. Dynamic loading? Hmmm... What about the Dynlink library? Is that not what you are talking about? > And then, there is no intermodule recursion. That is less serious, > but it is a pain: almost all of the lookup code in Felix is forced into > a single module, and it is a very large module. I get lost in it. > [Lookup in Felix is MUCH more complex than Ocaml, due to overloading] The module system in O'Caml is overall very powerful, but it has some weak spots. I think some significant improvements could be introduced with relatively little effort. O'CamlP4 is probably the key element in my idea of "revised module system". > Heh. But I have been writing Ocaml almost exclusively for 3-4 years now. > I might be on the C++ committee .. but I don't write C++ anymore :-) Give two or three more years and I'll be at your present level. I'm trying to use only O'Caml for application software and SQL for batch data processing tasks. > Be fair though: C++ is better than plain C. > It's not all that bad, considering the C compatibility constraint. > What I learned during the process is that C is a very very bad > language, doing almost everything wrong; this becomes evident > when you try to extend it (i.e. to build C++) in a a source comatible > way. I do not consider myself an expert in either language. What I can tell you is that I once had to write a Delaunay triangulation algorithm: I tried C++ but reverted to C soon enough, when I got lost in the calling sequences of constructors and destructors--complexity was a major concern, so I switched to C because of its entirely obvious code execution path. For many other applications, where complexity is not the primary concern, where hierarchical polymorphism can be exploited--without the need for templates--C++ can certainly win over C. > Felix doesn't try. It generates C++, and makes it easy to bind to C++, > but it is a new language, with its own type system and syntax. > > http://felix.sf.net > > C++ has an excuse for being a bad language. > > Java does not. So if you're going to be annoyed at a language, > pick Java: C++ advanced industrial programming significantly. > Java has set it back at least a decade. Listen, my experience with Java is limited, but has been frustrating enough. Let me repeat my previous comment: Long live the Caml! Alex ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners