From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F37DBCAE for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:27:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j6ILRjK3001235 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:27:45 +0200 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA04808 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:27:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j6ILRgX5032422 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:27:44 +0200 Received: from rosella (ppp27-104.lns1.syd2.internode.on.net [59.167.27.104]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j6ILRXsO060459; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:57:33 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] (Mostly) Functional Design? From: skaller To: Robert Morelli Cc: Alex Baretta , Ocaml In-Reply-To: <42DBF1C6.7080005@cs.utah.edu> References: <9cc3782b05071411004b27b6a4@mail.gmail.com> <42DB6161.4030507@cs.utah.edu> <42DB74DC.8030201@barettadeit.com> <42DBF1C6.7080005@cs.utah.edu> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-5oJHIvhC450dYkz9FKfR" Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 07:27:33 +1000 Message-Id: <1121722053.6774.93.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 42DC1ED1.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 42DC1ECF.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 morelli:01 ocaml:01 wrote:01 sourceforge:01 sourceforge:01 functional:02 productivity:03 mostly:07 john:08 dramatic:91 2005:89 think:11 robert:11 kind:12 X-Attachments: type="application/pgp-signature" name="signature.asc" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: --=-5oJHIvhC450dYkz9FKfR Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 12:15 -0600, Robert Morelli wrote: > With all due respect, claims of order of magnitude productivity > gains, that OCaml is a far better language than Java, etc. are > exactly the kind of advocacy that I think is counterproductive. > Most programmers would regard such dramatic statements as implausible, > if not preposterous. Yes they would .. until they tried it. --=20 John Skaller --=-5oJHIvhC450dYkz9FKfR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBC3B7DsRp8/9aGVGsRAs2nAKCNmaoun5cPr7bOG90ot92t6lpFXgCfWthf 0YKaB2V8snfrrAWSmBmVUBc= =3mit -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-5oJHIvhC450dYkz9FKfR--