[ocaml-biz] the Python competitor

[Brian Hurt]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

> Also, the need for strong typing is highly debateable.  An entirely
> different school of thought is that unit testing is what actually
> matters.
> http://www.xoltar.org/misc/static_typing_eckel.html
> Python people can and will make this argument, successfully.

First, it's not a question of strong static type checking OR unit testing,
it's a question of strong static type checking AND unit testing.  You can, 
and indeed should, unit test your Ocaml.

Second, notice what they are comparing it to- Java and C++.  And probably
Pascal.  The statically type checked languages people know.  And I bet
mostly Java, with C++ and Pascal added on as after thoughts.  With a
profusion of templates, C++ is capable of expressing the same types as
Ocaml, just signifigantly more clumsily.  Of course, a profusion of
templates leads to code bloat.  Java can't even express the type string
list.

I bet if I compared Ocaml to GWBasic, Ocaml would make a better scripting 
language.

But this is part of the problem Ocaml faces.  People see these problems- 
and they are legitimate problems- with the current popular crop of 
statically typed languages.  The trick is convincing them that solutions 
do, indeed, exist.  You can get the benefits of static type checking (and 
more) without the bondage and discipline aspects.

-- 
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
                                - Gene Spafford 
Brian