[clue-talk] Stupid OCaml tricks

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 08-14 12:55, Matt Gushee wrote:
> Hey ho.

I missed the presentation, but someone I know happened to just have sent me
a link dealing with .NET, CLR and F#. Apparently, F# is an OCaml derivative
for CLR? Not really paying much attention to .NET, it wasn't on my radar:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5254-6257-0.html?forumID=99&threadID=184332&messageID=2076681&id=2926438&tag=nl.e601

The actual point of the article I don't really get, other than beating the
drum for MS, since many languages are already ported to JVM as well (which
already works quite nicely on *nix, thank you), although I couldn't find
anything about a working OCaml port.

This site is one I've visited before, and delineates ports to JVM, and I
just assumed OCaml would be there, but no dice:
http://www.robert-tolksdorf.de/vmlanguages.html

For a total "rah-rah" on .NET and ported languages, see "Is .NET taking
over the world?". Truly shameless, but funny in a FUD sort of way.
http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/235


I do agree that combining the power of your language of choice with more
powerful tools like a modern debugger could be powerful. Has anyone done
anything like this, either with CLR or JVM?

-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at comcast.net  
http://sean-leblanc.blogspot.com/
Conceptual integrity in turn dictates that the design must proceed from one 
mind, or from a very small number of agreeing resonant minds. 
-Frederick Brooks Jr., "The Mythical Man Month"