Python-like compiled language

[Alex Martelli]

"Erno Kuusela" <erno-news at erno.iki.fi> wrote in message
news:kulmtk5h86.fsf at lasipalatsi.fi...
> In article <917ipt023tk at news2.newsguy.com>, "Alex Martelli"
> <aleaxit at yahoo.com> writes:
>
> || [good scheme suggestion snipped]
> ||
> || it is also rumored that ocaml has a good optimizing compiler.
>
> | It has an _excellent_ compiler, but it has no similarity to
> | Python whatsoever.
>
> well, compared to c/c++ at least it is quite high-level and it has
> nice syntax. :)

We'll have to disagree on the latter, I fear.  I'm on record as
loathing C's syntax (and C++'s, because of compatibility with
C's), but OCaml's horrid crowded syntax is a factor that keeps
me away from it.  Do you LIKE writing
    2.1 +. 3.2 /. 4.3
...?  Just about every other infix-syntax language in the world
lets you write
    2.1 + 3.2 / 4.3
but OCaml insists on the dotted-operators (the undotted ones
are reserved for integer ops).  And that's just the start of it.

Actually, OCaml _does_ have somewhat of a C++ feel to it --
crowded syntax, lots of reasonably-coexisting (but not fully
integrated) paradigms, pretty good code generation (thanks
in part to a pretty rigid static typesystem), decent integration
with the environment.  It *IS* higher-level, and not as stable
or mature as C++, of course (with all that follows), but that
may be just a, oh, 10-years shift, maybe (the first OCaml book
came out in '95, I believe -- not too far from 10 years after
the first C++ one; there's a newer book now -- but many
things in it as marked as 'experimental, may change in future
releases').


Alex