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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_SOFTFAIL 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 CAB73BC69 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:57:53 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAO8KdkdFEXUKnmdsb2JhbACQDwIBAQEGBAYpgRSZXw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,221,1196636400"; d="scan'208";a="7316153" Received: from mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.10]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 29 Dec 2007 17:57:52 +0100 Received: (qmail 14226 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2007 16:57:51 -0000 Received: from shell4.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.116.5]) (envelope-sender ) by mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 29 Dec 2007 16:57:51 -0000 Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:57:50 -0800 (PST) From: brogoff To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] "OCaml gives you only monomorphic methods in classes." In-Reply-To: <200712290711.34066.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Message-ID: References: <200712282337.23952.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <200712290711.34066.jon@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 touted:01 odersky:01 lacks:01 existential:01 ocaml:01 2007,:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 typing:01 speakeasy:01 caml-list:01 monomorphic:01 lazy:02 functional:02 On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Saturday 29 December 2007 06:30:48 brogoff wrote: > > What's the date that quote was made? > > Yesterday, by the professor heading the group at Lausanne who are developing > one of the most widely touted modern statically-typed functional programming > languages (Scala). Then Dr. Odersky and his listeners would be well served by a polite correction. As Scala has been changing rapidly over the past year, he surely understands that comments made on a 2 year old version of Scala (Scala lacks lazy values, and structural typing, and existential types, and...) don't reflect the current state of the language. Other than that, I wouldn't let such comments deter me from investing time in the language. If it does what I want (interoperate with the JVM and Java) then what the users believe about OCaml is hardly relevant. -- Brian