# \[OT\] the funniest thing ever **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [10 February 2007 06:13 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238 "2007-02-10T06:13:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ara.T.Howard6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@Ara.T.Howard6](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ara.T.Howard6)\ **Post date:** [10 February 2007 06:13 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/1 "2007-02-10T06:13:23Z")
this was so dang funny i had to share it    C++ : an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.      -- off [smalltalk.org](http://smalltalk.org) [http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable\_computer\_programming\_languages.html](http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable_computer_programming_languages.html) i'm still laughing... -a > **···** > > -- > we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being better. > simply reflect on that. > - the dalai lama ---
**Author:** ![Morton\_Goldberg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Morton\_Goldberg](https://rubytalk.org/u/Morton_Goldberg)\ **Post date:** [10 February 2007 07:15 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/2 "2007-02-10T07:15:53Z")
That's really good. Thanks for sharing. I followed the link. I think the article is well worth reading. Some of the other quotes appearing there were almost a good as the one you picked. This one really got my attention:     C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but     when you do, you blow your whole leg off.        -- Bjarne Stroustrup It's hard to believe that comes from Bjarne Stroustrup. Regards, Morton > **···** > > On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:13 AM, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote: > > > this was so dang funny i had to share it > > > >   C++ : an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. > > > >     -- off smalltalk.org > > > > [http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable\_computer\_programming\_languages.html](http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable_computer_programming_languages.html) > > > > i'm still laughing... ---
**Author:** ![David\_A\_Black3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@David\_A\_Black3](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_A_Black3)\ **Post date:** [10 February 2007 12:00 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/3 "2007-02-10T12:00:14Z")
Hi -- > **···** > > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote: > > > this was so dang funny i had to share it > > > > C++ : an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. > > > >    -- off smalltalk.org > > > > [http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable\_computer\_programming\_languages.html](http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable_computer_programming_languages.html) > > > > i'm still laughing... > > If it walks like an octopus.... > > 🙂 > > David > > -- > Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers? > A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black ([http://www.manning.com/black\](http://www.manning.com/black%5C)) >     (See what readers are saying! [http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf\](http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf%5C)) > Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching? > A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC ([http://www.rubypal.com](http://www.rubypal.com)) ---
**Author:** ![Robert\_K1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/robert_k1/32/1830_2.png) [@Robert\_K1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Robert_K1)\ **Post date:** [10 February 2007 23:50 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/4 "2007-02-10T23:50:11Z")
Ara, thank you for sharing this - not only because of the funny quotes but also because of the lot of good brainfood! Kind regards   robert > **···** > > On 10.02.2007 07:13, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote: > > > this was so dang funny i had to share it > > > >   C++ : an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. > > > >     -- off smalltalk.org > > > > [http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable\_computer\_programming\_languages.html](http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable_computer_programming_languages.html) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_DeMello](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f17d59/32.png) [@Martin\_DeMello](https://rubytalk.org/u/Martin_DeMello)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 13:43 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/5 "2007-02-13T13:43:20Z")
my favourite quote from that article was lispnik Martin Rodgers's Will write code that writes code that writes code for food. martin > **···** > > On 2/10/07, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov \ wrote: > > > [http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable\_computer\_programming\_languages.html](http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable_computer_programming_languages.html) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Morton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@David\_Morton](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Morton)\ **Post date:** [12 February 2007 17:29 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/6 "2007-02-12T17:29:02Z")
I have to disagree with the paper a bit. It seems that the author is evaluating languages in a vacuum without practical considerations... typical for academia. If he likes OCAML so much, is there a mod\_ocaml for apache? are there MIME, SMTP, IMAP libraries available? Is there a a nice framework like Rails to build with? (just picking on it because the author likes it so much. I've never used OCAML) The pragmatic side of me says I don't have time to look at a language that can't get the job done. (even if you add "yet" to that). More importantly, the scalability of a language depends more on the programmer than the language. I've seen scalable and brittle code in almost all of those languages. David Morton Maia Mailguard [http://www.maiamailguard.com](http://www.maiamailguard.com) mortonda@dgrmm.net > **···** > > On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:15 AM, Morton Goldberg wrote: > > > On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:13 AM, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote: > > > > > [http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable\_computer\_programming\_languages.html](http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable_computer_programming_languages.html) > > > > That's really good. Thanks for sharing. I followed the link. I think the article is well worth reading. ---
**Author:** ![Ara.T.Howard6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@Ara.T.Howard6](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ara.T.Howard6)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 15:50 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/7 "2007-02-13T15:50:11Z")
yeah - i though about stealing that one! -a > **···** > > On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Martin DeMello wrote: > > > On 2/10/07, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov \ wrote: > > > > > [http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable\_computer\_programming\_languages.html](http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable_computer_programming_languages.html) > > > > my favourite quote from that article was lispnik Martin Rodgers's > > > > Will write code that writes code that writes code for food. > > -- > we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being better. > simply reflect on that. > - the dalai lama ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Conroy1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Richard\_Conroy1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Richard_Conroy1)\ **Post date:** [12 February 2007 19:00 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/8 "2007-02-12T19:00:00Z")
> \> That's really good. Thanks for sharing. I followed the link. I > \> think the article is well worth reading. > > I have to disagree with the paper a bit. It seems that the author is > evaluating languages in a vacuum without practical considerations... > typical for academia. > > If he likes OCAML so much, is there a mod\_ocaml for apache? are > there MIME, SMTP, IMAP libraries available? Is there a a nice > framework like Rails to build with? (just picking on it because the > author likes it so much. I've never used OCAML) OCaml gets a lot of attention mostly as a source of ideas for language designers, who are designing other languages, not OCaml. It has some fantastic features at the language design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library to speak of. The most sophisticated thing you can do with the standard distro is read a file. It \*does\* have a way of binding to C code. If it exists in C, you can use it and that's its hand-wavey excuse for not having any APIs. > The pragmatic side of me says I don't have time to look at a language > that can't get the job done. (even if you add "yet" to that). If anything is going to happen with OCaml, it will happen at the heavy-duty OSS level (like kernel writers). Its getting a lot of attention from the traditionally C-only crew. Its feature set is extremely impressive though, if you are comfortable at working in C, it would probably be an interesting language to learn. Currently its use in practical concerns is almost zero without it though. > **···** > > On 2/12/07, David Morton \ wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Aur\_Saraf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bcef8e/32.png) [@Aur\_Saraf](https://rubytalk.org/u/Aur_Saraf)\ **Post date:** [12 February 2007 20:58 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/9 "2007-02-12T20:58:43Z")
His only point is that there is correlation between scalability and applicability of a language. The rest is evaluation of scalability of different languages. Does the lack of a mod\_ocaml make it less sacalable? No. It makes it more applicable. Which isn't the same. Does the hampered (is that a word?) scalability of C++ make it less applicable? IMHO, it does. The scalability of a language isn't dependent on the programmer. The scalability of a language is the inverse of how much the language gets in the way of writing scalable code (I think it's more fitting than "how much the language helps the programmers write scalable code", though that can be used too if we talk paths of least resistance). Aur Saraf Just my NIS.05 > **···** > > On 2/12/07, David Morton \ wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > I have to disagree with the paper a bit. It seems that the author is > > evaluating languages in a vacuum without practical considerations... > > typical for academia. > > > > If he likes OCAML so much, is there a mod\_ocaml for apache? are > > there MIME, SMTP, IMAP libraries available? Is there a a nice > > framework like Rails to build with? (just picking on it because the > > author likes it so much. I've never used OCAML) > > > > The pragmatic side of me says I don't have time to look at a language > > that can't get the job done. (even if you add "yet" to that). > > > > More importantly, the scalability of a language depends more on the > > programmer than the language. I've seen scalable and brittle code > > in almost all of those languages. ---
**Author:** ![Steven\_Lumos1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71e660/32.png) [@Steven\_Lumos1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Steven_Lumos1)\ **Post date:** [14 February 2007 18:07 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/10 "2007-02-14T18:07:06Z")
David Morton \ writes: > > > [http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/](http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/) > > > scalable\_computer\_programming\_languages.html > > > > That's really good. Thanks for sharing. I followed the link. I > > think the article is well worth reading. > > I have to disagree with the paper a bit. It seems that the author is > evaluating languages in a vacuum without practical considerations... > typical for academia. > > If he likes OCAML so much, is there a mod\_ocaml for apache? Yes. > are there MIME, SMTP, IMAP libraries available? Yes, yes, maybe not but none of these are quite rocket science so why do you care? > Is there a a nice framework like Rails to build with? Well probably since it seems to be the only killer app in the world and what every language zealot wants to copy. There is probably also a framework that was designed to take advantage of the strengths of the language instead of merely regurgitating another \*ails. > (just picking on it because the author likes it so much. I've never > used OCAML) > > The pragmatic side of me says I don't have time to look at a language > that can't get the job done. (even if you add "yet" to that). The Pragmatic side of me says learn a language a year. Steve > **···** > > > On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:15 AM, Morton Goldberg wrote: > > > > > On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:13 AM, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote: ---
**Author:** ![M\_Edward\_Ed\_Borasky1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9c0ed/32.png) [@M\_Edward\_Ed\_Borasky1](https://rubytalk.org/u/M_Edward_Ed_Borasky1)\ **Post date:** [12 February 2007 19:12 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/11 "2007-02-12T19:12:17Z")
Richard Conroy wrote: > **···** > > > On 2/12/07, David Morton \ wrote: > > > > > \> That's really good. Thanks for sharing. I followed the link. I > > > \> think the article is well worth reading. > > > > > > I have to disagree with the paper a bit. It seems that the author is > > > evaluating languages in a vacuum without practical considerations... > > > typical for academia. > > > > > > If he likes OCAML so much, is there a mod\_ocaml for apache? are > > > there MIME, SMTP, IMAP libraries available? Is there a a nice > > > framework like Rails to build with? (just picking on it because the > > > author likes it so much. I've never used OCAML) > > > > OCaml gets a lot of attention mostly as a source of ideas for > > language designers, who are designing other languages, not > > OCaml. > > > > It has some fantastic features at the language > > design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library > > to speak of. The most sophisticated thing you can do with the > > standard distro is read a file. > > > > It \*does\* have a way of binding to C code. If it exists in C, you can > > use it and that's its hand-wavey excuse for not having any APIs. > > > > > The pragmatic side of me says I don't have time to look at a language > > > that can't get the job done. (even if you add "yet" to that). > > > > If anything is going to happen with OCaml, it will happen at the > > heavy-duty OSS level (like kernel writers). Its getting a lot of attention from > > the traditionally C-only crew. > > > > Its feature set is extremely impressive though, if you are comfortable at > > working in C, it would probably be an interesting language to learn. > > > > Currently its use in practical concerns is almost zero without it though. > > Well ... the folks at INRIA have done some interesting things with it in their "Coq" proof assistant, including some proofs of program correctness. I've installed Coq on my machine and plan to play around a bit with that. If you can prove an OCaml program correct more easily than you can prove a Ruby program correct \*\*for practical sized programs\*\*, I'd say it's worth looking at. > > -- > M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P) > [http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/](http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/) > > If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire. ---
**Author:** ![Ara.T.Howard6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@Ara.T.Howard6](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ara.T.Howard6)\ **Post date:** [12 February 2007 21:19 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/12 "2007-02-12T21:19:38Z")
especially since mod\_ocaml is right here    [http://caml.inria.fr/cgi-bin/hump.en.cgi?contrib=281](http://caml.inria.fr/cgi-bin/hump.en.cgi?contrib=281) along with smtp, pop, net, cgi, etc    [http://ocamlnet.sourceforge.net/manual-2.2/](http://ocamlnet.sourceforge.net/manual-2.2/) fyi and very OT. -a > **···** > > On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, SonOfLilit wrote: > > > On 2/12/07, David Morton \ wrote: > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > I have to disagree with the paper a bit. It seems that the author is > > > evaluating languages in a vacuum without practical considerations... > > > typical for academia. > > > > > > If he likes OCAML so much, is there a mod\_ocaml for apache? are > > > there MIME, SMTP, IMAP libraries available? Is there a a nice > > > framework like Rails to build with? (just picking on it because the > > > author likes it so much. I've never used OCAML) > > > > > > The pragmatic side of me says I don't have time to look at a language > > > that can't get the job done. (even if you add "yet" to that). > > > > > > More importantly, the scalability of a language depends more on the > > > programmer than the language. I've seen scalable and brittle code > > > in almost all of those languages. > > > > His only point is that there is correlation between scalability and > > applicability of a language. > > > > The rest is evaluation of scalability of different languages. > > > > Does the lack of a mod\_ocaml make it less sacalable? No. It makes it more > > applicable. Which isn't the same. > > -- > we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being better. > simply reflect on that. > - the dalai lama ---
**Author:** ![Clifford\_Heath5](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7ab992/32.png) [@Clifford\_Heath5](https://rubytalk.org/u/Clifford_Heath5)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 10:15 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/13 "2007-02-13T10:15:05Z")
Richard Conroy wrote: > It has some fantastic features at the language > design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library > to speak of. That's funny. Coulda sworn that my Debian package listing contains one hundred and forty five maintained ocaml packages. If the base language package contains nearly nothing, \*that's an advantage\*. Clifford Heath. ---
**Author:** ![Aur\_Saraf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bcef8e/32.png) [@Aur\_Saraf](https://rubytalk.org/u/Aur_Saraf)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 10:23 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/14 "2007-02-13T10:23:13Z")
Ruby taught me that that is SO WRONG. I install a compiler/interpreter and I want to DEVELOP THINGS. Having a distribution with nearly nothing is OK, but the standard should be as full of functionality as possible. That also establishes standards and saves hackers who want to hack on a project in the language from the uncomfortable experience of having to install a googol libraries. Aur Saraf > **···** > > On 2/13/07, Clifford Heath \ wrote: > > > Richard Conroy wrote: > > \> It has some fantastic features at the language > > \> design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library > > \> to speak of. > > > > That's funny. Coulda sworn that my Debian package listing contains > > one hundred and forty five maintained ocaml packages. If the base > > language package contains nearly nothing, \*that's an advantage\*. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Conroy1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Richard\_Conroy1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Richard_Conroy1)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 11:03 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/15 "2007-02-13T11:03:01Z")
> Richard Conroy wrote: > \> It has some fantastic features at the language > \> design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library > \> to speak of. > > That's funny. Coulda sworn that my Debian package listing contains > one hundred and forty five maintained ocaml packages. I didn't get enough time to itemise the OCaml library space. Apologies if I have misrepresented the language. But I spent some time googling and chasing resources and didn't find anything, and no real links from the main page or tutorials. I got the impression that Caml development basically meant binding to C libraries. Whats the rubyforge equivalent for (O)Caml? Private e-mail it if you think this thread has gone too OT. I am very interested. A healthy library ecology raises OCaml from something to keep an eye on, to immediate attention. > If the base > language package contains nearly nothing, \*that's an advantage\*. Agreed. But if I didn't make it clear, my main concern was the availability of libraries for common development tasks, like database development, network comms protocols (particularly secure ones). etc. Yeah, this is getting more than a bit OT, but (O)Caml \*is\* interesting. > **···** > > On 2/13/07, Clifford Heath \ wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Kofler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e495f1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Kofler](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jimmy_Kofler)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 10:44 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/16 "2007-02-13T10:44:03Z")
Maybe some projects such as [http://www.haxe.org](http://www.haxe.org) or [http://www.ocsigen.org](http://www.ocsigen.org) should have been mentioned in the article. > **···** > > -- > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/](http://www.ruby-forum.com/). ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_DeMello](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f17d59/32.png) [@Martin\_DeMello](https://rubytalk.org/u/Martin_DeMello)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 11:24 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/17 "2007-02-13T11:24:43Z")
[http://caml.inria.fr/cgi-bin/hump.cgi](http://caml.inria.fr/cgi-bin/hump.cgi) Share and enjoy 🙂 m. > **···** > > On 2/13/07, Richard Conroy \ wrote: > > > Whats the rubyforge equivalent for (O)Caml? Private e-mail it if you think > > this thread has gone too OT. I am very interested. A healthy library > > ecology raises OCaml from something to keep an eye on, to immediate > > attention. ---
**Author:** ![Forum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/43a26b/32.png) [@Forum](https://rubytalk.org/u/Forum)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 11:28 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/18 "2007-02-13T11:28:27Z")
> \ I didn't get enough time to itemise the OCaml library space. Apologies > if I have misrepresented the language. But I spent some time googling > and chasing resources and didn't find anything, and no real links from > the main page or tutorials. I got the impression that Caml development > basically meant binding to C libraries. > > Whats the rubyforge equivalent for (O)Caml? I think enough people have shown interest in this thread to reply on list (there is a delete button too;) Caml has a Hump,right;) [http://caml.inria.fr//cgi-bin/hump.en.cgi](http://caml.inria.fr//cgi-bin/hump.en.cgi) more interesting stuff can be found here: [http://caml.inria.fr/resources/index.en.html](http://caml.inria.fr/resources/index.en.html) HTH Robert > **···** > > On 2/13/07, Richard Conroy \ wrote: > > -- > We have not succeeded in answering all of our questions. > In fact, in some ways, we are more confused than ever. > But we feel we are confused on a higher level and about more important > things. > -Anonymous ---
**Author:** ![Ara.T.Howard6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@Ara.T.Howard6](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ara.T.Howard6)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 15:44 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/19 "2007-02-13T15:44:59Z")
i don't think that's slowed rails down too much... it's a big install too... we can thank rubygems for that! -a > **···** > > On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, SonOfLilit wrote: > > > Ruby taught me that that is SO WRONG. > > > > I install a compiler/interpreter and I want to DEVELOP THINGS. > > > > Having a distribution with nearly nothing is OK, but the standard should be > > as full of functionality as possible. That also establishes standards and > > saves hackers who want to hack on a project in the language from the > > uncomfortable experience of having to install a googol libraries. > > -- > we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being better. > simply reflect on that. > - the dalai lama ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_Pease](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3e96dc/32.png) [@Tim\_Pease](https://rubytalk.org/u/Tim_Pease)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 15:48 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/20 "2007-02-13T15:48:46Z")
And you have to love the Ruby community where an off-topic humor thread starts espousing the wonders of the ocaml language. I remember a similar thing happening on a previous thread comparing Ruby and Python. It, too, ended up discussing how the wonders of ocaml. TwP > **···** > > On 2/13/07, Richard Conroy \ wrote: > > > On 2/13/07, Clifford Heath \ wrote: > > \> Richard Conroy wrote: > > \> \> It has some fantastic features at the language > > \> \> design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library > > \> \> to speak of. > > \> > > \> That's funny. Coulda sworn that my Debian package listing contains > > \> one hundred and forty five maintained ocaml packages. > > > > I didn't get enough time to itemise the OCaml library space. Apologies > > if I have misrepresented the language. But I spent some time googling > > and chasing resources and didn't find anything, and no real links from > > the main page or tutorials. I got the impression that Caml development > > basically meant binding to C libraries. > > > > Whats the rubyforge equivalent for (O)Caml? Private e-mail it if you think > > this thread has gone too OT. I am very interested. A healthy library > > ecology raises OCaml from something to keep an eye on, to immediate > > attention. > > > > \> If the base > > \> language package contains nearly nothing, \*that's an advantage\*. > > > > Agreed. But if I didn't make it clear, my main concern was the availability > > of libraries for common development tasks, like database development, > > network comms protocols (particularly secure ones). etc. > > > > Yeah, this is getting more than a bit OT, but (O)Caml \*is\* interesting. [Next page](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238.md?page=2)