Christian Szegedy <szegedy / t-online.de> writes:

> Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> >>>>>>"Nikodemus" == Nikodemus Siivola <tsiivola / cc.hut.fi> writes:
> >>>>>
> >
> >     Nikodemus> What I'd *love* would be to keep ruby dynamic as it is,
> >     Nikodemus> and have a statically typed language, call it R, with a
> >     Nikodemus> ruby-like syntax for extension writing: the two should
> >     Nikodemus> be easily interoperable and have equivalent builtin
> >     Nikodemus> classes.
> > It has not a Ruby syntax, but it seems to me that Ocaml fits in
> 
> > nicely. Ocaml is statically typed, functional and object-oriented
> > (with multiple inheritance...).
> > See www.ocaml.org
> 
> >
> 
> 
> I like ocaml and I am trying to use it, but:
> 
> 1) It is considerably less concise than Ruby.
No it is not, you have to learn it a  bit better.
> 
> 2) It is at least 2x slower than optimized C code, and it is even
>     slower in Object oriented mode.
No it is not, and it's even easy to find examples where it's faster
than C. 
> 
> 3) The OO support is quite artificial and (at least aesthetically)
>     does not fit into the core language.
Why?

Regards
Friedrich