Re: Problems to get larger user base ... (Re: [Caml-list] OCaml's variables)

[Francois Berenger <berenger@riken.jp>]

On 05/29/2013 11:39 AM, Jeff Meister wrote:
> I hesitate to recommend Part I of the OCaml Manual as an introduction
> for new users because it is so terse and dense. It describes the core
> language on a single HTML page. Powerful features of great consequence
> are covered rapidly. For example, variant types are relegated to a
> single section with only three example types.
>
> I do not mean to complain about the OCaml Manual; its succinctness is a
> virtue. It assumes I am competent and does not waste my time. Nearly
> every sentence in Part I conveys vital information and should be read
> carefully. But people are not used to engaging with tutorials in this
> manner. They expect motivation (explanation of the reasoning behind
> various features) and hand-holding, which they can skip over or consult
> depending on their level of understanding. Ideally, they want to see an
> example that does something similar to whatever they're currently
> working on.
>
> Most people actively involved in the OCaml community right now have
> either read the language reference (i.e., Part II) or are capable of
> doing so if they wanted to. Many of them have substantial background in
> programming language theory. But the majority of programmers cannot
> learn the language in this way. I think appealing to them requires a
> more didactic method.

Maybe this one then:

http://try.ocamlpro.com/

;)

> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Francois Berenger <berenger@riken.jp
> <mailto:berenger@riken.jp>> wrote:
>
>     On 05/28/2013 11:44 AM, oliver wrote:
>
>         On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:17:04AM +0900, Francois Berenger wrote:
>
>             On 05/27/2013 09:38 PM, Mr. Herr wrote:
>
>
>                 Am 27.05.2013 10 <tel:27.05.2013%2010>:53, schrieb Erik
>                 de Castro Lopo:
>
>                     Mr. Herr wrote:
>
>                         I think the biggest problem is you generally can
>                         only learn FP and/or Ocaml at
>                         university, because:
>
>                         The FP terminology is at first (and a long time
>                         after starting learning it), without
>                         a teacher, not understandable.
>
>                     Sorry, that's simply not true.
>
>                     I studied my last univeristy course in 1992. I
>                     picked up Ocaml in 2004
>                     and Haskell in 2008. Before Ocaml, the only
>                     functional language I had
>                     used was scheme in the late 1980s.
>
>
>                 Scheme is terribly functional, so to say, and is
>                 absolutely immerged in the Lispy slang.
>                 All your knowlegde in C, Java, PHP, Assembler, Tcl/Tk,
>                 Pascal ... will not help you
>                 there.
>
>                 I started as an IBM /370 Systems Admin in the late
>                 nineties, and it took me months of
>                 reading in 2012
>                 to get some understanding about what the heck the scheme
>                 people are talking about.
>
>                 Scheme is even a better example for the problems non
>                 university learners encounter,
>                 than Ocaml, IMO.
>
>
>             A very good book on scheme (which is also quite a deep
>             introduction
>             to computer science if you read the whole thing in fact):
>
>             "structure and interpretation of computer programs"
>
>             http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/__full-text/book/book.html
>             <http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html>
>
>         [...]
>
>         As language introduction it is too much text.
>         It is meant as introduction to computer science.
>
>
>     But what an introduction. ;)
>
>
>         AFAIK scheme was developed for this task.
>
>         The scheme standard is not so hard to read, and it has only 50
>         pages.
>         Thats IMHO better if someone looks for a introduction to the
>         language
>         only.
>
>         For comparison: OCaml ref-man: 554 pages and IMHO not a good
>         starting
>         point. IMHO better are some of the introductional books out there,
>         e.g. OCaml-Ora-book and jason Hickeys book.
>         After that then the Refman.
>
>
>     Honestly, I think "Part I An introduction to OCaml"
>     from "The OCaml system release 4.00
>     Documentation and user’s manual"
>     at
>     http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/__manual-ocaml/
>     <http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/>
>     is enough for a start.
>
>     I think you can even skip the Objects chapter in there.
>     And that's only pages 9 to 33 in the PDF version of the document.
>
>     Regards,
>     F.
>
>
>     --
>     Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
>     https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/__arc/caml-list
>     <https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list>
>     Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/__ocaml_beginners
>     <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners>
>     Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-__bugs
>     <http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs>
>
>