From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A67C3BC88 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 22:55:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from kraid.nerim.net (smtp-105-friday.nerim.net [62.4.16.105]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j14LtLro019819 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 22:55:21 +0100 Received: from hector.lesours (ours.starynkevitch.net [62.212.121.80]) by kraid.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA2C41490 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 22:55:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from basile by hector.lesours with local (Exim 4.44) id 1CxBQ8-0002cn-Tn for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Fri, 04 Feb 2005 22:55:20 +0100 Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 22:55:20 +0100 To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Estimating the size of the ocaml community Message-ID: <20050204215520.GA9985@ours.starynkevitch.net> References: <891bd33905020213315a2ebb18@mail.gmail.com> <8008871f05020213362d21ba87@mail.gmail.com> <000f01c50971$baad4840$0100a8c0@mshome.net> <1107403128.32586.223.camel@pelican.wigram> <20050203173556.4acec1c5.ocaml-erikd@mega-nerd.com> <009a01c50a1e$f6c92080$0100a8c0@mshome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <009a01c50a1e$f6c92080$0100a8c0@mshome.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: Basile STARYNKEVITCH X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4203EF49.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 basile:01 basile:01 gava:01 ecrivait:01 wrote:01 ocaml:01 runtime:01 metaocaml:01 metaocaml:01 nerim:01 faiencerie:01 92340:01 reine:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: Le Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 07:34:15PM +0100, Frédéric Gava écrivait/wrote: > Hi, > > > Anyway, this leaves us with a very interesting question: how many people > > actually do believe in the value of Ocaml? I, for myself, use it whenever > > it is the most appropriate tool for a job (usually, when portability is > > an issue). This is sometimes the case, but more often than not, LISP > > turned out to be a better choice for what I do. > What kinds of programs code with LISP could not be implemented (easely) > using Ocaml ? The main feature of Lisp that Ocaml does not have is the meta-programming ability. This not only includes the powerful macro system of Common Lisp (but Ocaml has Camlp4) but above all the ability to genreate code at runtime. The MetaOcaml extension of Ocaml (see http://metaocaml.org/ for details) has a typeful meta-programming ability (which should be stronger than that of Common Lisp, mostly because its type system guarantee types of generated programs): howevefr the current implementation does not garbage-collect the generated programs, which make using it awkward. I hope I am grossly right - I may be wrong in the details, not being a MetaOcaml expert. Regards. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basilestarynkevitchnet aliases: basiletunesorg = bstarynknerimnet 8, rue de la Faïencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France