Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: "ocaml_beginners"::[] C++ compiler written in OCaml

Expand Messages
  • rixed@happyleptic.org
    ... If a language is to be judged by it s normative reference documentation, then what do we judge OCaml which have no such norm ?
    Message 1 of 17 , Jun 1, 2011
      > 2) the standard is poorly written, e.g. I saw multi-line pieces which look
      > identical at first sight, but I can't be sure.

      If a language is to be judged by it's normative reference documentation,
      then what do we judge OCaml which have no such norm ?
    • Dario Teixeira
      Hi, ... A comparison between C++ and OCaml in that regard would most likely lead us to conclude that the existence of a normative form (C++) does not imply
      Message 2 of 17 , Jun 1, 2011
        Hi,

        > If a language is to be judged by it's normative reference documentation,
        > then what do we judge OCaml which have no such norm ?

        A comparison between C++ and OCaml in that regard would most likely lead
        us to conclude that the existence of a normative form (C++) does not imply
        semantics which are simpler to understand and implement when compared to
        "read-the-source" semantics (OCaml).

        (Having said that, I think there are some tentative steps towards an eventual
        formalisation of OCaml. See some recent publications by Jacques Garrigue,
        for example.)

        As to the original poster's question, it must be noted that there are
        several OCaml projects that parse and manipulate C sources. Therefore,
        at least half of the question is answered. Moreover, I would like to
        believe that the other half (C++) is explained by most OCaml developers
        realising that C++ has become a baroque festival whose full implementation
        is simply not worth the headache.

        Cheers,
        Dario Teixeira
      • Sergei Steshenko
        I judge OCaml by the official tutorial. FWIW, neither Perl nor Java has a standard describing them. It would be nice if OCaml developers submitted a standard
        Message 3 of 17 , Jun 1, 2011
          I judge OCaml by the "official" tutorial.

          FWIW, neither Perl nor Java has a standard describing them.

          It would be nice if OCaml developers submitted a standard proposal.

          Regards,
          Sergei.


          --- On Wed, 6/1/11, rixed@... <rixed@...> wrote:

          From: rixed@... <rixed@...>
          Subject: Re: "ocaml_beginners"::[] C++ compiler written in OCaml
          To: ocaml_beginners@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Wednesday, June 1, 2011, 12:34 AM


          > 2) the standard is poorly written, e.g. I saw multi-line pieces which look

          > identical at first sight, but I can't be sure.



          If a language is to be judged by it's normative reference documentation,

          then what do we judge OCaml which have no such norm ?
        • Mihamina Rakotomandimby
          ... Which one? -- RMA.
          Message 4 of 17 , Jun 1, 2011
            > On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
            > Sergei Steshenko <sergstesh@...> wrote:
            > I judge OCaml by the "official" tutorial.

            Which one?

            --
            RMA.
          • Sergei Steshenko
            http://mirror.ocamlcore.org/ocaml-tutorial.org/index.html ... From: Mihamina Rakotomandimby Subject: Re: ocaml_beginners ::[] C++ compiler
            Message 5 of 17 , Jun 1, 2011
              http://mirror.ocamlcore.org/ocaml-tutorial.org/index.html


              --- On Wed, 6/1/11, Mihamina Rakotomandimby <mihamina@...> wrote:

              From: Mihamina Rakotomandimby <mihamina@...>
              Subject: Re: "ocaml_beginners"::[] C++ compiler written in OCaml
              To: ocaml_beginners@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Wednesday, June 1, 2011, 2:51 PM

              > On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:20:40 -0700 (PDT)

              > Sergei Steshenko <sergstesh@...> wrote:

              > I judge OCaml by the "official" tutorial.



              Which one?



              --

              RMA.
            • Mihamina Rakotomandimby
              ... I think it is a tutorial, not the one. -- RMA.
              Message 6 of 17 , Jun 2, 2011
                > On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
                > Sergei Steshenko <sergstesh@...> wrote:

                > http://mirror.ocamlcore.org/ocaml-tutorial.org/index.html

                I think it is "a" tutorial, not "the" one.

                --
                RMA.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.