On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 02:05:56AM +0900, Phil Tomson wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.62.0507192121430.10750 / harp.ngdc.noaa.gov>,
> Ara.T.Howard <Ara.T.Howard / noaa.gov> wrote:
> >On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Hal Fulton wrote:
> >
> >> Ara.T.Howard wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Hal Fulton wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> But I am happy with Ruby until something better comes along.
> >>>> Such as Ruby 2.0.
> >>> 
> >>> what do you think of ocaml hal?
> >>> 
> >>
> >> Is that an Irish animal that can go for a week
> >> without a drink?
> >
> >yes.  ;-)
> >
> >>
> >> Seriously, I've never looked at that one. Nor
> >> Haskell either.
> >>
> >> I know I should look at things like that, but my
> >> to-do list is already formidable.
> >
> >i bought a very expensive book on it from
> >
> >   http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/
> >
> >it was quite good but bloody expensive.  ping me and i'll loan it to you.
> >
> 
> 
> So, Ara, what do you think of OCaml after reading that book?  
> (investigating OCaml has been on my TODO list for a few years now, but 
> it'll have to wait till my thesis is done).  
> 
> 
> Phil

Phil,

I know you asked Ara about this but I thought I'd answer anyway.

I have used both Ruby and OCaml for real projects in the telecommunications space.
They are both worthwhile for different reasons.  My favorite language for
most things is Ruby.  It's really fast to prototype and can be easily optimized.
However, in cases where you can't put a Ruby interpreter on a machine or just
absolutely require compiled code, OCaml is the next best thing.  The main
difference is that OCaml is staticly typed so duck typing is completely out.
It is a full featured, multi-paradigm (functional programming, object
oriented, structured programming) language that can be compiled on most
current processor architectures.

About a month ago I had the pleasure of meeting Ara and many other Rubyists
from the Denver area.  OCaml turned out to be one of the things we talked
about.
It seems that many people are looking at it to fill the holes
that languages like Ruby have.  Be aware that OCaml has holes that Ruby
fills nicely, though.  I see them as complimentary tool sets.

Rick

-- 
Rick Nooner
rick / nooner.net
http://www.nooner.net