Re: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity

[Chris Hecker <checker@d6.com>]

>Have others had similar experiences?  I suspect most of the readers of this list
>are better-than-average programmers.  How difficult have you found it to be to
>teach Ocaml to your colleagues?  Any suggestions on a simple pedagogy for
>bringing more junior people abreast of subjects as esoteric as polymorphic
>recursive types?

I agree that Ocaml is big and powerful, and I even think it's kind of ugly.  ;)  However, I've been learning it in stages so I don't agree with your statement about not being able to use subsets.

Features I'm using:  

closures, local and anonymous functions, libraries, imperative stuff, experimenting with higher order functions (but usually just 1st order (2nd?), where a function takes a function), tiny bit of currying, genlex parsers, nested data structures

Features I'm not using right now:

objects, heavy modules, functors, streams (besides simple genlex things), heavy duty polymorphism, threads, lazy

I haven't taught anyone to use Ocaml completely, but I've walked non-functional (!) programmers through my code and they seem like they could get it.

Chris


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr