> In another life I wrote lots of numerical linear algebra programs, and I
> find that a little overloading would make the code a lot nicer.
I admit: I don't write this much numerical code so I don't have many
opportunities to complain about missing operator overloading there...
> Funny that you should say that, I've been spending a bit more of my spare
> time hacking Haskell for the same reasons you describe below. I translated
> almost all of the monads in Wadler's "Essence of FP" paper to OCaml but
> ended up using regular prefix syntax. Yes, if you use different monads
> simultaneously you have to use qualified names. Bummer.
It is of course possible to use "regular" (?) prefix syntax, but there are
other problems, too: e.g. if you want to "move" from a state transformer to
a state reader, you might be forced to update some module names, whereas
resolution of operator overloading might change meaning (= the "right"
monad to use) automatically as required.
> The main problems here are
>
> (1) The enormous number of existing libraries (and tools for managing them)
> for these other languages
>
> (2) The extensive documentation they have
Well, there is not much one can do against this unless you can pay a very
big development team that just focuses on these things...
On the other hand, a "slowly" growing library is more likely to be
well-designed.
> (3) The OCaml error messaging, which makes worse the problem most people
> already have with the unfamiliar type system
Except in the cases when OCaml prints out some kilometers of conflicting
module signatures, I am quite content with the error messages.
> Fortunately for me, my employer really likes OCaml :-)
Lucky you! ;-)
Best regards,
Markus Mottl
-- Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 19:27:51 MET DST