Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Estimating the size of the ocaml community
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2005-02-04 (09:36)
From: Thomas Fischbacher <Thomas.Fischbacher@P...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Estimating the size of the ocaml community

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote:

> > (2) Speaking of syntax, there's a lot of unnecessary cruft in virtually 
> > any language besides LISP (or rather, Scheme).
> Usually what someone considers "unnecessary cruft" is defined by what
> they're used to.  People are used to the annoyances of the languages
> they use the most and don't tend to notice them, but when using a less
> familiar language, pay a lot of attention to anything that seems more
> cumbersome.
> As an obvious example, neither Common Lisp or Scheme have
> pattern-matching.  Accessing data via pattern matching is often far more
> convenient than via c[ad]+r, slot accessors etc.

Sure! But Lisp gives me the freedom to add it via a library. Which also 
kind of says that it's unnecessary to complicate the core language by 
putting in such a conceptually ad-hoc feature.

Of course, from the LISP point of view, virtually anything that's done by 
other languages is conceptually ad-hoc, and can easily be added by 
extending the language. ;-)

regards,                   (o_
 Thomas Fischbacher -  //\
(lambda (n) ((lambda (p q r) (p p q r)) (lambda (g x y)           V_/_
(if (= x 0) y (g g (- x 1) (* x y)))) n 1))                  (Debian GNU)