Thanks for the pointer. My first thought is that I didn't see anything overwhelmingly compelling there, although I can see the benefits of having a "standard" language with many implementations vs. an implementation defined language.
As far as OCaml OO goes, I rarely use it (with one exception: objects implementing the "visitor pattern" for traversing the AST of a C program [1]) so its existence doesn't affect me. Perhaps I'd view the resulting language complexity as a negative if I had to maintain OCaml code that was OO heavy.
Comments
Thanks for the pointer. My first thought is that I didn't see anything overwhelmingly compelling there, although I can see the benefits of having a "standard" language with many implementations vs. an implementation defined language.
As far as OCaml OO goes, I rarely use it (with one exception: objects implementing the "visitor pattern" for traversing the AST of a C program [1]) so its existence doesn't affect me. Perhaps I'd view the resulting language complexity as a negative if I had to maintain OCaml code that was OO heavy.
[1]: http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~necula/cil/api/Cil.cilVisitor....
Oddly, I've never heard anybody say they use the OO part of OCaml much. (I don't, either.)