RE: Looking for a nail

From: Don Syme (
Date: Thu Jan 28 1999 - 14:32:58 MET

From: Don Syme <>
Subject: RE: Looking for a nail
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 05:32:58 -0800

> I'm not sure this is such a good idea for CAML. The non-OO part of
> CAML is quite mature, while the OO part is more like research. Forcing
> everybody to use CAML as an OO language is IMHO not a very nice thing.
> I do not use the OO part of CAML at all right now, and I'm pretty sure
> I'm not the only one. I think we need more experience with the OO part
> of CAML (or, more fundamentally with OO programming in a functional
> language) before choosing to use it for basic types.

Yes, I'd be interested to see a really convincing use of the utility of the
OO features, e.g. a program or library which is manifestly shorter, cleaner
and/or simpler when expressed with OO rather than the core features. I
guess people can take this as a challenge if they like :-) I'm open to be
convinced - but I'm not convinced yet.

That said, Xavier mentions the match between COM & Ocaml, which is a good


At the lab: At home:
Microsoft Research Cambridge 11 John St
St George House CB1 1DT
Cambridge, CB2 3NH, UK
Ph: +44 (0) 1223 744797 Ph: +44 (0) 1223 722244
   "You've been chosen as an extra in the movie
        adaptation of the sequel to your life" -- Pavement, Shady Lane

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:19 MET