Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
> ML was one of the first P/Ls I was taught. SML in high school, then
> Moscow ML (just a different implementation) in college.
I did Edinburgh ML at uni (in Edinburgh, no less), although I had done
Pascal and various forms of BASIC before that, and some 68K assembly.
Ultimately I still prefer C, although my skills are basic at best.
Probably the most gratifying language I ever used was ARexx, primarily
due to its ports system (supporting applications with an ARexx port(al)
allowed calling functions within the application from a script). There
was even an ARexx compiler IIRC.
I've never touched OCaml, but it's on my todo list ... along with
several hundred other things, like Ajax.
> It's pretty useless for most things we think of as 'applications',
> but good for language processing, AI, etc.
>
> ML is a nightmare to work with at a high pace. OpenGL, on the other
> hand, has been lots of fun. programming for GPUs makes eye candy
> (bugs are very visual) whereas ML is the very opposite -- CLI.
There are bindings to GTK+ available in mGTK, and subsequently LablGL
and LablGTK for OCaml.
I think the main advantage to ML in general is in logical analysis,
where deductive reasoning and proof are paramount, but essentially /any/
language may be utilised for any purpose, given the right approach. It
just depends on what your used to.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining
| armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos
| neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate
| technology, led them into it in the first place." ~ Douglas Adams
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
17:34:28 up 210 days, 14:10, 4 users, load average: 0.22, 0.27, 0.26
|
|
