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 billtj@z.glue.umd.edu on 08/26/2002 06:59 AM
Please respond to ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
To: ruby-talk ML ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
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 szegedy@nospam.or.uni-bonn.de 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.)