From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F304FBC6B for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:29:47 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAEsqhkfAXQInh2dsb2JhbACQHgEBAQgKKZkn X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,268,1196636400"; d="scan'208";a="7657727" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 10 Jan 2008 23:29:47 +0100 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m0AMTlPF013484 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:29:47 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAEsqhkfAbSoIh2dsb2JhbACQHgEBAQgKKZkn X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,268,1196636400"; d="scan'208";a="5923704" Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 10 Jan 2008 23:29:46 +0100 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de X-Envelope-To: Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id m0AMTjTX000916 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:29:45 +0100 Received: (from www-data@localhost) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id m0AMTjlr000910 for caml-list@inria.fr; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:29:45 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: einhorn.in-berlin.de: www-data set sender to oliver@first.in-berlin.de using -f Received: from dslb-088-073-077-156.pools.arcor-ip.net (dslb-088-073-077-156.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.73.77.156]) by webmail.in-berlin.de (IMP) with HTTP for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:29:45 +0100 Message-ID: <1200004185.47869c59a1bc4@webmail.in-berlin.de> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:29:45 +0100 From: Oliver Bandel To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Annoying behaviour of OCaml References: <447544.64925.qm@web30511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <447544.64925.qm@web30511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.6 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 47869C5B.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; bandel:01 in-berlin:01 ocaml:01 bandel:01 in-berlin:01 bug:01 kde:01 gui-design:01 bug:01 overriding:01 haskell:01 ocaml:01 haskell:01 guideline:98 imho:01 Zitat von David Thomas : > > --- Oliver Bandel wrote: > > Even if this would be the case, not what we expect > > is of importance, but what the documentation says. > > If there's a difference between documentation and > > bahaviour, then there is a bug (in the > documentation, > > or in the implementation, or both). > > I disagree that expectations are of no importance. > Principle of least surprise and all that... [...] Principle of least surprise is fine. But it depends on the view of the one who is surprised or not. When I start to use Blender for example, with the principle of least surprise, I will be very surprised not to have the typical Windows-GUI (and KDE and such stuff) when using it. I could blame the developers for using completely different ways of GUI-design, writing hate-mails to them, why they didn't used the menues that every person expects, when using a GUI-based application, ... ...or I could try to learn how to use and see, that it's the best GUI (IMHO), that was ever invented. Or there are expectations to three mouse-buttons and for a long time the expectation was, that only the left button has to be used; since a while the right one also became popular, and later then the middle button. But some years ago I wanted to provide a GUI as frontend to sendfile; I used left button for "add file", right for "remove file" (or other way around, don't know). The sendmail developer than said, this is against the expectations, so he would not encourage it. To go that way every time IMHO is nonsesne... ...expectations can (and WILL) be changed by the programs that people use. Habituating to them means changing the expectations. Expectations are based on habits. And habits can change (even if sometimes slowly). OK, this is not OCaml-discussion, but you started an abstract discussion, so I can use the arguments on other software too. > Violation > of expectations is a bug not in documentation or > implementation, but design. That said, there may very > well be overriding concerns that force us to introduce > behavior contrary to expectations in certain instances > - it's one guideline of many. So, OK, then these "overridings" are at work here. ;-) When one knows them, this is OK, IMHO. The perfect world can possibly be found at http://www.haskell.org/ I'm now very habituated to OCaml. And it's "imperfection" (compared to Haskell) is a plus for me, because I like the multi-paradigm way. I also have moaned about non-functional strings years ago (when starting with OCaml), but now my expectations have been ocamlized ;-) and today it's ok for me. There are good reasons for them and I could go to the Haskell-universe if I don't want them. And I didn't had problems with the imparative strings so far, so my experiences confirmed the design of OCaml. This might be different for other people, depending on needs and expectations ;-) (needs might also be habituated). And if compare does not fit the needs, one can write special compare-functions. I'm sure, in OCaml, this can be done with a hand of lines of Code. Ciao, Oliver