Re: introspection in SML

Jon Harrop <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> You don't seem to be acquainted with the state-of-the-art in IDEs
> and debuggers. Try developing C# in Visual Studio, for example, and
> you will quickly see that it automates a lot of this very tedious
> work that you are currently doing by hand in SML.

Until and unless C# and Visual Studio can compile, build and debug the
Linux kernel it makes no difference to my work how state-of-the-art
Visual Studio is.  How is that relevant?  Well ...

> This is not surprising because SML is a long way from having a
> professional development environment but you repeatedly talk about
> SML as if it is ready for prime time when, in reality, it is a long
> way from being usable for the majority of practical applications.

I use the same development environment (Emacs) to write C code and
SML, thus any argument you are making against SML applies to C in my
domain.  Perhaps the work I do lies outside of "the majority of
practical applications"?