Re: [Caml-list] Newbie comment on constructor syntax

[immanuel litzroth <ilitzroth@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2711 bytes --]

1) Recent c++ has several syntaxes for specifying types of functions, see
e.g:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional/function

2) C++ has the equivalent of first class functions.

One of the main problems of  functional programming in C++ is that it
doesn't really
support composition of algorithms very well. This guy explains it very well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFnhhPehpKw
Greetz,
i


On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Hendrik Boom <hendrik@topoi.pooq.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 08:27:52AM +0000, Soegtrop, Michael wrote:
> > Dear Ocaml Users and Developers,
> ...
> ...
> >
> > Another note: it was suggested in this mail thread to enforce type
> > specifications for function arguments to make the life of beginners
> > easier. I would rather not do this. A functional language lives from
> > function arguments and in many cases it is clear what it is and being
> > forced to write this down would be just a nuisance. I enjoy the
> > flexibility to give the types only at interface functions and to leave
> > it away in internal functions where it is clear. People coming from
> > C++, where functional style programming is turned done a lot by the
> > heavy syntax required to write down what you want, will definitely
> > enjoy this.
>
> Please, the problem with C++ for functional programming isn't that you
> have to specify the types of functions; it's that the syntax of types in
> C++ is completely inside-out and insane.  I've been programming in C
> since the 70's and I *still* find it confusing.  OCaml type notation,
> like Algol 68 type notation, is a breath of fresh air by comparison.
>
> And of course, that C++ doesn't have first-class functions.  Or has that
> changed recently?
>
> > What might help to make the life of beginners easier is to
> > have a compiler option to print the types of all defined functions. I
> > think many people don't start with ocamltop, but with the compiler. In
> > my case I started a project where I thought it is likely easier to
> > learn Ocaml and to write it in Ocaml than to write it in C++. Such
> > projects you don't start with ocamltop. But for high reliability code,
> > it would make sense to have a compiler option to enforce full type
> > specifications of all arguments.
>
> In any case, the problem with OCaml's apparent typelessness isn't that
> you don't have to write the types, it's that when you see someone
> else's code you can't read the types.
>
> --- hendr9ik
>
> --
> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3840 bytes --]