]> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 03:20:36PM -0600, Brian Hurt wrote: > into C++). And Java is the only language whose memory management is more > advanced than 1968-era LISP. Did you forget to include the word "mainstream"? > I want a copy. But I don't know how close to mainstream it is. Perl, > Python, and Ruby are scripting languages, still mainly used for short, > single-person, throw-away projects. And they aren't that far from Python and Ruby are hardly scripting languages, even though they are often used as such. I think they could be decent general purpose programming languages except for a few unfortunate design decisions (such as scoping rules). > C in it. Java succeeded because IBM, Sun, Oracle, and a number of other > huge companies got behind it. Not just that, the OO hype is a huge factor. Faced with advocates who claim that subclassing is all you need and other language features are undesirable, it takes a while for inexperienced programmers - even smart ones - to become disillusioned and take the time to learn something different... It's difficult for programming languages to be judged on merit. People who are reasonably unbiased and know enough to be able to make informed comparisons aren't likely to consider any language or paradigm the "one true way". But not many people listen to advocates who don't claim that their solution is perfect. I'm fairly sure nobody on this list would claim that OCaml is above all other languages for every possible purpose. However, does anyone consider OCaml the best existing language for a particular use? Or just the most convenient implementation of the features needed? ------------------- 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