[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 13:05 -0500, Vladimir Gapeyev wrote:
> If you did have experience programming in a modern strongly and statically
> typed language like SML, OCaml, or Haskell, and still do not see their
> benefits... I am sorry for the above lecturing. Perhaps it is useless to
> spend your energy on discussions like this -- static typing enthusiasts
> are as convinced in their point as you are in yours.
This is the truest thing anyone has said in this thread.
> If the situation is opposite, you can be pleasantly surprized how close to
> Python those languages are!
Haskell is the only one of those I've played with. I did like it, but I
couldn't see myself using it for the sort of large-scale development I
do in Python. Just personal preference, I'm sure.
I've always wanted to try OCaml, but never had the time.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Use CSS to display XML - http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/edu/x-dw-x-xmlcss-i.html
Full XML Indexes with Gnosis - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/12/08/py-xml.html
Be humble, not imperial (in design) - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=10286
UBL 1.0 - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think28.html
Use Universal Feed Parser to tame RSS - http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-tipufp.html
Default and error handling in XSLT lookup tables - http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-tiplook.html
A survey of XML standards - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-stand4/
The State of Python-XML in 2004 - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/10/13/py-xml.html
|
