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 4462782355 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 22:11:13 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=marshall@logical.net; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=marshall@logical.net; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@smtp486.redcondor.net Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of marshall@logical.net) identity=pra; client-ip=208.80.204.86; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="marshall@logical.net"; x-sender="marshall@logical.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of marshall@logical.net designates 208.80.204.86 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=208.80.204.86; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="marshall@logical.net"; x-sender="marshall@logical.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@smtp486.redcondor.net) identity=helo; client-ip=208.80.204.86; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="marshall@logical.net"; x-sender="postmaster@smtp486.redcondor.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3Ae4+TYhPUHKcARnp7PxMl6mtUPXoX/o7sNwtQ0KIM?= =?us-ascii?q?zox0K/X9rarrMEGX3/hxlliBBdydsK0UzbeO+4nbGkU+or+5+EgYd5JNUxJXwe?= =?us-ascii?q?43pCcHRPC/NEvgMfTxZDY7FskRHHVs/nW8LFQHUJ2mPw6aijSI4DUTAhTyMxZu?= =?us-ascii?q?bqSwQ9aKzpf/6+fn3LbaZgEAoTO8ZbJ0I12SrB7N/p0diI5mb6Iw0Qfho31Seu?= =?us-ascii?q?0Qy3k+dnyJmBOpw86q555q9yAY7/co7dVAWKH+V6A/Qr1TBTBgNW0psp64/SLf?= =?us-ascii?q?RBeCsyNPGl4dlQBFVk2ctEn3?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AQBADn8y5ah1bMUNBbGwEBAQEDAQEBC?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAYQncSeEApkggVcmiHWQLAqFOwKEckMUAQEBAQEBAQEBARIBAQEIDQkIKC+?= =?us-ascii?q?COAUBHgEFgkABAQEBAgEjShELCxgCAiYCAiE2BhMZiXcDDQgFqD+CJ4cwDYMmA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBAQEhgQ+CWYILgVWCEwuCQTaCaoI1gxUxgjIFkyOPMT2DIY0EiQq?= =?us-ascii?q?IA4dSjUeFVINDgTs2gXFMLgo6KgGBfj+CI4FyIFmIBoFZAQEB?= X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AQBADn8y5ah1bMUNBbGwEBAQEDAQEBCQEBAYQncSeEApk?= =?us-ascii?q?ggVcmiHWQLAqFOwKEckMUAQEBAQEBAQEBARIBAQEIDQkIKC+COAUBHgEFgkABA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAgEjShELCxgCAiYCAiE2BhMZiXcDDQgFqD+CJ4cwDYMmAQEBBwEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?hgQ+CWYILgVWCEwuCQTaCaoI1gxUxgjIFkyOPMT2DIY0EiQqIA4dSjUeFVINDg?= =?us-ascii?q?Ts2gXFMLgo6KgGBfj+CI4FyIFmIBoFZAQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,392,1508796000"; d="scan'208";a="304995598" Received: from smtp486.redcondor.net ([208.80.204.86]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA256; 11 Dec 2017 22:11:11 +0100 Received: from outbound1.logical.net ([209.23.116.247]) by smtp486.redcondor.net ({6695537a-536a-45f9-a249-877c85428649}) via TCP (outbound) with ESMTPS id 20171211211108239_0486 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:11:08 +0000 X-RC-FROM: X-RC-RCPT: Received: from [192.168.2.4] (71-45-15-196.res.bhn.net [71.45.15.196] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by outbound1.logical.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id vBBLB0JR006003 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:11:02 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Marshall In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:10:59 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8419F723-7722-4CEB-9099-C81ED4F75E12@logical.net> References: <6640cb32-fec3-e048-3f40-53d65bae5305@gerd-stolpmann.de> <20171211161024.kafvtxzq3qcoo46p@matica.foolinux.mooo.com> To: OCaml Mailing List X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) X-MAG-OUTBOUND: logical.redcondor.net@209.23.116/24 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ReasonML concrete syntax > On Dec 11, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Yotam Barnoy wrote: >=20 > It's simply a human reality that we like > to try things that are close to what we already know.=20 Yes, and I would go further. There are too many tools and languages to exp= lore; any time spent exploring one has an opportunity cost in lost explorat= ion of something else that might be useful or just cool. Any moderately experienced programmer can learn a lot about a new language = that=E2=80=99s not too different just by learning a few core concepts, look= ing at some code, and trying to write some simple programs. Past experien= ce plays a big role, though. If you=E2=80=99d never seen OO programming, r= eading C++ or Java or OO-style Python or OO-style Javascript requires a bit= more learning, but once you know the concepts from one, you can guess a lo= t about another. The same point holds for FP. And it holds for syntax in = general. Everyone knows C/Java/Javascript/a million other languages style = syntax. If you come from that world and try to learn Lisp or Haskell or an= ML-family language, you have to do a bit of study before you can even star= t experimenting seriously. Then you might ask: =E2=80=9CIs it worth it ri= ght now? There all of these other tools or languages I want to learn. Thi= s new language with the weird syntax sounds cool, and I know I=E2=80=99m sm= art enough to learn it, but I=E2=80=99m busy. I have other priorities at = the moment. Maybe I=E2=80=99ll learn it another time.=E2=80=9D And then y= ou never get back to it, because there are always too many things to learn,= and you know, you have to have a life, too. And maybe if the syntax had s= eemed more intuitive, by the time you put the new language with the weird s= yntax aside for the time being, you would have already written your first l= ittle program in it, because you could guess how to write it just from look= ing at a little bit of sample code and reading a screenfull of background i= nfo. And by now you would have taken the first step understanding the new = language, and might be starting to wonder whether this could be a very usef= ul tool to learn more thoroughly. I like ML-style syntax, but I know that that makes me weird among programme= rs. :-)