Re: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial ObjectionTo O'Caml

From: Max Skaller (maxs@in.ot.com.au)
Date: Fri Jun 09 2000 - 04:30:05 MET DST

Next message: David Chemouil: "polymorphic variants"

Previous message: Markus Mottl: "OcamlMakefile"
In reply to: Brent Fulgham: "RE: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection To O'Caml"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Brent Fulgham wrote:
>
> > BTW: people here read books. An English Ocaml book
> > would provide very strong support for industrial use.
> >
> I'm in the process of reading "The Functional Approach
> to Programming" (Cousineau & Mauny). This book is not
> strictly OCaml

That's part of the problem. People here are short of time:
while education in functional programming techniques is
useful, a description of Ocaml is more pointed: remember,
Ocaml is _not_ a functional programming language, but an
Algol like language with functional, procedural, and object
oriented components... just like C++.

In ocaml, the 'orientation' is more functional, but the biggest
obstacle isn't the functional paradigm as such, but the actual
concrete syntax used.

-- 
John (Max) Skaller at OTT [Open Telecommications Ltd]
mailto:maxs@in.ot.com.au      -- at work
mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au  -- at home

Next message: David Chemouil: "polymorphic variants"
Previous message: Markus Mottl: "OcamlMakefile"
In reply to: Brent Fulgham: "RE: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection To O'Caml"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 09 2000 - 19:36:29 MET DST