From: Christian Szegedy <szegedy@...>
Date: 2002-08-26T22:59:43+09:00
Subject: Re: A Repeat: New Language After Ruby?

William Djaja Tjokroaminata wrote:
> Very well said, Charles.  I completely agree with you.
> 
> That's why I really hesitate to start learning Haskell.  It seems Haskell
> can only be interfaced with C through some intermediary called "Greed
> Card" and not directly as between C and Ruby.  Also one of my colleages
> here is learning Scheme.  I still cannot persuade myself to learn Haskell
> in particular (why not Scheme, or even Emacs Lisp, which will make my 
> editor do all the wonderful things?) or a functional language in general.
> 
> Regards,
>

OCaml can be extended easily extended by C-functions. (It's a bit more
complicated than extending Ruby, but still not too hard.)

I have chosen OCaml because it's great performance and practical libraries
and because it seems to be very stable.

OCaml has the ambititon to become a really usefull language for everyday use,
not just an experimental one for theoretical purposes. For me Haskell seems
to be quite a "toy for students", while OCaml is a really serious and practical
project. (I don't want to offend anybody, these are just my impressions, and
not backed by too much experience on Haskell.)