From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,21960280f1d61e84 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: in defense of GC References: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1mahvxskejxe1$.tx7bjdqyo2oj$.dlg@40tude.net> <2tfy9vgph3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1g7m33bys8v4p.6p9cpsh3k031$.dlg@40tude.net> <14hm72xd3b0bq$.axktv523vay8$.dlg@40tude.net> <4zwt33xm4b.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1j7neot6h1udi$.14vp2aos6z9l8.dlg@40tude.net> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:17:18 +0100 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:lff0/eSjL7ZgoPG6Hf4UYQFSqQk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.241.241 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1170846731 88.72.241.241 (7 Feb 2007 12:12:11 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9105 Date: 2007-02-07T12:17:18+01:00 List-Id: Ray Blaak writes: > Markus E Leypold writes: >> That's why you MUST use Ocaml :-). No, joke, I do not know what is the >> important thing to you in Lisp. OCaml has no macros etc. But the >> typing makes things vastly more manageable. > > I think what I prefer about Lisp (and Scheme) vs the ML style languages is > that Lisp is a little more laid back. The syntax is cleaner, and the whole FP > obsession thing is optional. > > The whole obsession in the syntax with just how functions map from inputs to > outputs just seem a little too serious, but maybe I am confusing things with > ML. I prefer to relax with the currying in declarations and just show simple Ah, I understand. In OCaml 'let f a b c = ...' defines a curried function so the "function ... -> function ... -> function" is greatly diminished even if you want curried functions. > function signatures instead. Of course in Lisp, one just passes the lambas > around and lets the runtime worry about the mismatches. > The funny thing is that the whole dynamic thing just doesn't seem to fail as > badly as the static typing purists would have us believe. Now I do want my No certainly not. I've even been heard to say "Python is not such abd language" sometimes. It's basically a testing thing and if you build slowly enough (not too many new _library_ components) or do really good code reviews and dcoumentation) it doesn't seem to make too much difference for systems not too large (I don't know about really large systems since I'm missing the opprotunity to compare -- one really large system is written in Lisp: Emacs :-). > strong static typing, espcially for parameter mismatches on function calls, > but I find it interesting that significant software can get done just fine in > Lisp. Lisp is not such a bad language. And the List support is excellent :-). > I have always had OCaml on my list to dig into more. Maybe I should actually > get around to it. Do it! The infrastructure around it (bytecode + native compilers, abilitiy to build interactive top levels, good library bindings etc) are also something not to be missed. It has dome downsides to the purist or if you're looking for specific things: Strings are always mutable (has been criticized but will not/never be changed) which is a source for some errors and there are no subrange types. But overall: Recommended. Regards -- Markus