Re: [Caml-list] If OCaml were a car

[Tom <tom.primozic@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1063 bytes --]

On 19/08/07, John Carr <jfc@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>
> OCaml has a badly designed syntax processed by a badly implemented
> parser feeding into a backend that generates poor error messages.
> All this makes the language hard to use.
>

I would just like to know, what exactly do you think is badly designed, and
what would be a better alternative? Mind that I am not defending OCaml's
syntax here (I have grown accustumed to it, but I do not find it superb...
probably...), I just think that all criticism should be constructive (that
is, shut up unless you've got a better idea). I would also like to hear some
improvements that could be made to the syntax (of OCaml or possibly some
future functional language), as I think that currently, OCaml syntax is
better than both SML and Haskell.

One possible complaint I see here is too many parenthenses and therefore
confusing eror messages, however I prefer denser code to the way it was
"fixed" in the revised syntax by adding more closing terminals...

 - Tom

(I hope you get what I'm saying... I'm somehow lost...)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1386 bytes --]