]> On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 11:19:59PM -0500, Oleg wrote: > On Monday 20 January 2003 03:37 pm, Brian Hurt wrote: > > The trend here is that the mainstream only takes baby steps. > > If someone merely added > - ADTs > - variant types > - GC > - strict[er] typing > - and perhaps polymorphism > > to C, I wonder if such a language would take off. Take a look at http://www.research.att.com/projects/cyclone/ and <advertise> http://gont.pld.org.pl/ </advertise>. But if you want to know my opinion... I designed such a language, wrote compiler for it in OCaml, rewrote compiler in this language (getting it to bootstrap was a lot of fun :-), and finally coded something else (kind of extended lambda calculus interpreter) in OCaml. And the final impression was: it's far easier in OCaml. The main difference between OCaml (the part that I was using) and Gont was syntax. And OCaml syntax is better, once you get used to FP. For example: <'b>list map(*('b ('a)) f, <'a>list l) { switch l { case Nil: return Nil; case Cons(hd, tl): return Cons(f(hd), map(f, tl)); } } Or version using type inference: def map2(f, l) { switch l { case Nil: return Nil; case Cons(hd, tl): return Cons(f(hd), map2(f, tl)); } } And now in OCaml let rec map f = function | [] -> [] | x :: xs -> f x :: map f xs -- : Michal Moskal ::::: malekith/at/pld-linux.org : GCS {C,UL}++++$ a? !tv : PLD Linux ::::::: Wroclaw University, CS Dept : {E-,w}-- {b++,e}>+++ h ------------------- 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