From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA28778; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:59:08 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA28813 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:59:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.de [213.165.64.20]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id h2CIx6X01194 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:59:06 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 30725 invoked by uid 0); 12 Mar 2003 18:59:06 -0000 Received: from pD9505977.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO phaeton.entropie.net) (217.80.89.119) by mail.gmx.net (mp017-rz3) with SMTP; 12 Mar 2003 18:59:06 -0000 Received: (from phaeton@localhost) by phaeton.entropie.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CIx5s02453; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:59:05 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:59:05 +0100 From: Martin Weber To: Graham Guttocks Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity Message-ID: <20030312185904.GB372@phaeton.entropie.net> References: <20030306232731.7374.qmail@web10305.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030306232731.7374.qmail@web10305.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam: no; 0.00; weber:99 caml-list:01 bagley's:01 shootout:01 rave:99 python:01 run-time:01 bignum:01 sigh:01 ocaml:01 lisp:01 null:01 syntax:02 float:02 string:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 12:27:31PM +1300, Graham Guttocks wrote: > Greetings, > > I discovered OCaml on Doug Bagley's computer shootout page where he > gives it a rave review over all the other languages he evaluated. > (...) Yes, that's where I stumbled over Ocaml for the first time, too ... > After looking into it further, I'm just surprised that OCaml isn't > more popular. I'm not. Exaggerating: Most programmers are idiots, and idiots won't be able to appreciate the good things - they take the language which fits their intellectual base. Still wondering why tons of people program in perl ? :) > (...) > Any ideas why OCaml isn't more well known? Is it just because the > language is not as old as something like Python, or perhaps because > the syntax is more difficult to learn? Bluntly, why should Ocaml be known more ? I'm programming in about a dozen languages, and I don't give a **** about whether the language is known or not. If it needs a run-time environment and I gotta deliver, fine, then they gotta install the run-time environment too. As long as it's not java you're delivering, they can even download it via the 'net and still live to see it finishing :) >>From all the things I judge a language, its popularity is nothing I'm looking at. Well, okay, it can serve to amuse me. The popularity of lisp for example ("lisp is dead" (yeah - as dead as I am)), or that of perl (@{%$}!!) ... On the syntax bit, I think it's just sad that ocaml requires different special operators for different arguments, that's about it which might drive off new people. (why +. ? Can't 'a + 'a be enough for integer, bignum, rational, float, string, whatsoEVER addition ? sigh ...). regards, -martin PS: I'm using perl and java myself, so just making sure that you get that this is no flamebait. If you can't help yourself, cat > /dev/null. ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners