I used to be a Java fanatic. Then, Psion enlightened me to the ways of ML, making me realize how simplistic Java is.

But ML is ugly.

C# (Microsoft's revised version of C++ for .NET) appears at first to be Java with different keywords. But, in fact, it's just a slight bit better: value types and a loss of (overt) distinction between primitive and object types are just some of the improvements.

But, I'm no fan of giving in to Microsoft's dominance.

So, now I'm a fan of the Mono project, an open source compiler/runtime for C# and .NET which runs on Win32 and Linux (and more).

Check out: http://www.go-mono.org

- taubz

ML is only ugly to psychology majors, I guess. :P

Everyone read http://www.schizomaniac.net/ml.html

I was reading over some source code that dated back to 1981 the other day, which runs some equipement on VAX. It was horribly cryptic and reminded me of ML in that manner, even though they're completely different. I'm talking about ATLAS. It's horrible.

But as with all languages, once you've learned the fundamentals, it's just practice and experience that makes it All Good.

I had a substitute teacher for english tell me that C++ is dead and that C# rules over Java... I was going to ask her why she was a sub then...

Even though I'm fairly new to ML, I wouldn't call it ugly. I would say that when coded well it can be very elegant.

although the way the syntax is "compressed" (fun, etc) ML *can* be quite cryptic. this just makes it more daunting for the beginer, but as the common aura seems to show once you know it, you don't notice