From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEB467EE51 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 04:52:04 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of berenger@riken.jp) identity=pra; client-ip=134.160.33.161; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="berenger@riken.jp"; x-sender="berenger@riken.jp"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of berenger@riken.jp designates 134.160.33.161 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=134.160.33.161; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="berenger@riken.jp"; x-sender="berenger@riken.jp"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of postmaster@postman.riken.jp designates 134.160.33.161 as permitted sender) identity=helo; client-ip=134.160.33.161; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="berenger@riken.jp"; x-sender="postmaster@postman.riken.jp"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlkGAMhqpVGGoCGhh2dsb2JhbABZgzmwFJIZAwGBGw4BAQEIDQkHFiiCIwEBBAEyAQU1AQsFCwsOCgkEGgcPAjQBEQYNAQUCAQEOAodnAwkGDLJdA4hnjUhacweDVAOJHY4egSmEdY5A X-IPAS-Result: AlkGAMhqpVGGoCGhh2dsb2JhbABZgzmwFJIZAwGBGw4BAQEIDQkHFiiCIwEBBAEyAQU1AQsFCwsOCgkEGgcPAjQBEQYNAQUCAQEOAodnAwkGDLJdA4hnjUhacweDVAOJHY4egSmEdY5A X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,762,1363129200"; d="scan'208";a="19374528" Received: from postman1.riken.jp (HELO postman.riken.jp) ([134.160.33.161]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 29 May 2013 04:52:03 +0200 Received: from postman.riken.jp (postman1.riken.jp [127.0.0.1]) by postman.riken.jp (Postfix) with SMTP id A111D32C02B5; Wed, 29 May 2013 11:52:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from [172.27.98.103] (rikad98.riken.jp [134.160.214.98]) by postman.riken.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D596432A0085; Wed, 29 May 2013 11:51:59 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <51A56D4F.20003@riken.jp> Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 11:51:59 +0900 From: Francois Berenger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Meister CC: Caml List References: <20130523235355.GI6510@siouxsie> <20130526150008.GA2014@siouxsie> <20130526234911.41866xca7wgoirfb@webmail.in-berlin.de> <51A30E01.5070300@freenet.de> <20130527185345.e01a7733ac652f89f4e400f7@mega-nerd.com> <51A353BE.5030009@freenet.de> <51A40590.4090501@riken.jp> <20130528024413.GA4602@siouxsie> <51A4272F.8050803@riken.jp> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2013.5.29.24221 Subject: Re: Problems to get larger user base ... (Re: [Caml-list] OCaml's variables) 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 > 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 :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 > > > [...] > > 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/ > > 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 > > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/__ocaml_beginners > > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-__bugs > > >