From: ken.lacrosse@... Date: 2002-08-26T23:41:19+09:00 Subject: Re: A Repeat: New Language After Ruby? I'm going for OCaml myself. I make my living doing Perl in a Fortune 50 (at least until November), have played with Ruby and Python and wanted to learn something entirely different but still (potentially) useful. OCaml was my choice since it was a functional language, has (true) strong type checking, ran on all the platforms I was interested in (Windows, Linux and various other *nix flavors), seemed to have a fairly active development community, has an online pre-print version of an OReilly book (http://caml.inria.fr/oreilly-book/), 3 different execution modes (one of which is a byte code VM which will hopefully get ported to Parrot) and (remember I do Perl) has a camel! Ken From: William Djaja Tjokroaminata on 08/26/2002 06:59 AM Please respond to ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org To: ruby-talk ML cc: Subject: Re: A Repeat: New Language After Ruby? Thanks for sharing your opinion. I completely agree with you. I think learning a new thing is important, but because of the schedules and priorities, I think it is better if the new language can also be put practically for everyday use. Well, for me probably it is left to choose among Haskell, Scheme/MzScheme/Guile (because of SWIG) and OCaml... Regards, Bill =========================================================================== Christian Szegedy wrote: > 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.)