From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C77EBC6B for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:42:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.140]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l7RBgL1L008332 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:42:23 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAADJN0kY7pw2h/2dsb2JhbAAM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.19,311,1183300200"; d="scan'208";a="180447167" Received: from ppp59-167-13-161.lns2.syd7.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([59.167.13.161]) by ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2007 21:12:20 +0930 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] On bashing the OCaml-car... From: skaller To: Oliver Bandel Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <1188211279.46d2aa4f77e5b@webmail.in-berlin.de> References: <1188211279.46d2aa4f77e5b@webmail.in-berlin.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:42:18 +1000 Message-Id: <1188214938.13927.28.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 46D2B89D.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; 0200,:01 bandel:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 syntax:01 contrarily:01 syntax:01 functors:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 oliver:01 caml-list:01 data:02 structures:02 functional:02 On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 12:41 +0200, Oliver Bandel wrote: > Yes. So, why do you bothering?! > Please, no more OCaml-bashing. I am not Ocaml bashing: I'm analysing the consequences of certain choices. I can write a lot of different languages, Ocaml is only one. I also designed my own, similar in some respects to Ocaml, and made some different choices with different consequences. My point is simply that the OP is right: Ocaml has a rather convoluted and complex syntax that is hard to grasp. Many people think functional programming is hard to learn, contrarily, I think it is quite easy and takes about 1 hour, since any programmer already knows it (though perhaps not indepth techniques). When I first started using Ocaml I had no problem with the functional programming aspect .. it was the syntax I had problems with .. and clearly still do. For example functors are a simple idea I understand from basic category theory .. but simple math I can use to express the relations between various algebraic data structures totally elude me in Ocaml. I'm not the only one .. only the true masters even come close to understanding why, in fact, it doesn't work without considerable extra trickery (I have seen some of these solutions .. there is no way in the world I could have come up with them). -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net