Re: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity

["Jonathan Coupe" <jonathan@meanwhile.freeserve.co.uk>]

> Tore Lund <tl001@online.no> writes:
>
> > The one thing that definitely needs fixing if OCaml is ever to catch on
> > is the *name*.  For my own part it took some time before my brain even
> > registered that there was such a language, and I am sure this was due to
> > the unwieldy abbreviation "OCaml" - it looks like a typo or line noise
> > the first time you see it.

> > Earlier, when asked `which language do you use for it?' I used to
> > answer `Objective See Ay Em Ell', but people often thought I meant
> > `Objective C', then :-) Now I say `Objective Camel'.  It means a bit
> > more to them than just `Oh-Camel'.  Unfortunately, they get the
> > impression that it's some obscure object oriented language like
> > Smalltalk now, so I add `a functional language'.
>

The biggest source of confusion I've noticed is with Occam - a pascaloid (?)
language for parallel processing.

- Jonathan

-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr