?

[Skybuck Flying]

With my last posting I mean the following:

What can an oz programmer program that can't be programmed with ALGOL like
languages ?

The only thing I understand so far is that it has some wacky, weird,
difficult to use constraint language stuff.

Right now I am investigating how far I can take MPL constraint language
since that has an COM interface for Delphi.

So once I understand how to model my problem I could use it for Delphi :P*

So no big deal there.... :P =D

It's all a matter of programming hehe and finding a way to do what I want
with MPL.

Ofcourse if you want to convince that OZ is *reallllllllllllly powerfull*

You will simply solve my little question which I posted to this newsgroup
about
*optimal filesharing* =D

If you can solve/program that problem in say a few days with oz it will be
convinced.

If not then I am just going to continue to laugh at this language called OZ
=D

"Jens Grabarske" <grabarske at dfn-cert.de> wrote in message
news:mailman.176.1097243016.9839.mozart-users at ps.uni-sb.de...
> Skybuck Flying schrieb:
> > "Prayank Swaroop" <prayank.swaroop at gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:mailman.166.1097236142.9839.mozart-users at ps.uni-sb.de...
> >
> >>Hey  Skybuck
> >>Its good that u r being so critical, but then u cud be proactive and
> >
> >
> > Critical is not the right word.
> >
> > Insulted is a better word.
> >
> > Millions and millions of programmers use the java, c, pascal, delphi,
php,
> > javascript, ada, etc syntax which is all similiar.
> >
> > Why in godsname should millions of programmers turn everything upside
down
> > just for this language.
>
> First of all, these syntaxes are similiar, but not equal. They all have
> differences, some are subtle, some are quite obvious.
>
> Smalltalk, Common Lisp, Oz, Scheme, Miranda, SML, ML, OCamL, Prolog...
> and the like all have a different syntax to the old ALGOL syntax (ALGOL
> is the "grandfather" syntax-wise to the languages you mentioned, so to
> speak).
>
> There are good reasons for having a different syntax. First of all, none
> of the languages you mentioned are functional. Functional programming is
> a chapter on its own, it's a different paradigm than object-oriented
> programming, imperative programming or any programming style you have
> learned so far. It has a lot of neat and interesting features, but to
> apply it seriously (there's a little word pun for you you will
> understand when you have read the book I recommended you), you will have
> to introduce some basics in your syntax. And while you're at it, it's by
> far more convenient to use these building blocks to construct the rest
> of the language than to introduce the ALGOL syntax "just because it
> looks more like C".
>
> Prolog is even a far more obvious case. Prolog is relational programming
> and ALGOL syntax wouldn't make ANY sense at all!
>
> And last but not least: noone says that millions of programmers turn
> down ALGOL syntax. We did. And we did it for a reason. If you want to
> understand the reason, start learning about other paradigms apart from
> imperative and object-oriented programming.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jens
>
> >
> >
> >
____________________________________________________________________________
_____
> > mozart-users mailing list
mozart-users at ps.uni-sb.de
> > http://www.mozart-oz.org/mailman/listinfo/mozart-users
> >
> >      You are invited to The 2nd International Mozart/Oz Conference (MOZ
2004)
> > Charleroi, Belgium, Oct. 7-8, 2004
http://www.cetic.be/moz2004
>
>
> -- 
> Jens Grabarske (Research), DFN-CERT Services GmbH
> https://www.dfn-cert.de, +49 40 808077-621 / +49 40 808077-555 (Hotline)
>