From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA05363 for caml-red; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:47:50 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA32133 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:13:16 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from thresher.xpsystems.com ([207.171.47.5])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e59GDDr15292
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:13:15 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: by THRESHER with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <KK6NBQCD>; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:13:55 -0700
Message-ID: <EDFD2A95EE7DD31187350090279C6767958A90@THRESHER>
From: Brent Fulgham <brent.fulgham@xpsystems.com>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: RE: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection
	To   O'Caml
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:13:54 -0700 
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Sender: weis

> > I'm in the process of reading "The Functional Approach
> > to Programming" (Cousineau & Mauny).  This book is not
> > strictly OCaml 
> 
> That's part of the problem. People here are short of time:
> while education in functional programming techniques is 
> useful, a description of Ocaml is more pointed: remember,
> Ocaml is _not_ a functional programming language, but an
> Algol like language with functional, procedural, and object
> oriented components... just like C++. 
> 
> In ocaml, the 'orientation' is more functional, but the biggest
> obstacle isn't the functional paradigm as such, but the actual
> concrete syntax used.
> 
Yes.  An O'Reilly-style "Nutshell" handbook would be quite nice.
However, I have not seen such an animal.  I'm afraid the C&M book
is all that's available for those of us whose French skills are
sub-par.

It will probably take a killer app to get such a book published...

-Brent