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=1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75E6FBBC4 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:37:08 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgkBAB650UlDWxLCe2dsb2JhbACBUpQwAQEWIgSnMYYuiE2DegY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,453,1233529200"; d="scan'208";a="25348647" Received: from ip67-91-18-194.z18-91-67.customer.algx.net (HELO server1.bertec.net) ([67.91.18.194]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2009 15:37:07 +0200 Received: from kuba-laptop.bertec.net (kuba-laptop.bertec.net [192.168.2.48]) by server1.bertec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF571056D1 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3091E0E6-226B-4F4A-A78C-E523C250B8D5@osu.edu> From: Kuba Ober To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] questions Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:37:05 -0400 References: <364f41440903241242v6dd2244fkbbd1ea8e3b20af60@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 haskell:01 ocaml:01 cheers:01 blog:98 beginners:01 caml-list:01 imperative:01 short:01 caml:02 caml:02 objective:02 match:02 revised:02 authors:03 > > the following are the most visible ocaml tutorials, but are low =20 > quality, blog like, full of misleading characterizations, =20 > irrevelancies, misleading comparisons. The type that you'd spend =20 > hours on and got more confused, regardless whether you are a expert =20= > logician or expert industrial programer. These tutorial's quality =20 > and nature are similar to the ones you'd find of the freely bundled =20= > official tutorials from perl, java, or even haskell. Typically =20 > written as a revised diary of learning experiences by student =20 > programers, or by academicians who are llliterate in technical =20 > writing. > > =95 intro to ocaml, from official site > http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/manual003.html > > =95 =93Objective CAML Tutorial=94, most cited tutorial on the web > http://www.ocaml-tutorial.org/ > > There are 3 or so more ocaml tutorials i've looked on the web, from =20= > the first page of google search with word =93ocaml tutorial=94. I = don't =20 > think they are not worth your time. > > ------------------------- > > I'd be good if the ocaml managers perhaps thru some arrangement, to =20= > borrow Jon Harrop's chapter 1, or other quality sources, in =20 > replacement of the tutorial on the official site. Because, a quailty =20= > tutorial bundled with the official release has great impact. The =20 > official tutorial makes the first impression of the lang for most =20 > people. > > Xah There must be some reason why the manual and other materials on the =20 official site are of such poor quality. I've thought a bit about it, =20 and the only reason I see is that the authors do not have a feel for =20 what it takes to learn/understand/use that language. They obviously =20 know it all through, but that's still far removed from being able to =20 explain it to someone else. I don't know, of course, how it is that =20 one understands something "well" yet is not able to explain it to =20 somebody else. To me, that's very fragile knowledge. I always thought =20= that deep understanding implies an ability to extract what's =20 important, and to lead the other person from some "basics" (whatever =20 they may be) to the conclusion. Some experience in imperative =20 languages can be perhaps expected of the OCaml beginners. But the =20 manual, the official tutorial, and even ocaml-tutorial, fall short of =20= being really useful - for me. Personally, I found them next to =20 useless, but that perhaps has to do with my own shortcomings. Books that lag behind the current release's features are not all that =20= great either -- you find a book that's a good match to your needs, and =20= then, after a while, find that you miss on a lot of good stuff that's =20= not mentioned in the book. I have two examples of such books: Jon's =20 book, and Marcelo DiPierro's web2py book. Both are very good books =20 because the authors have a feel for what it takes to understand what =20 they talk about. Yet both miss out on some newer features of OCaml and =20= web2py, respectively -- features that would be best explained by the =20 very same authors! Cheers, Kuba=