From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id CAA30551; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:44:05 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA31698 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:44:03 +0100 (MET) Received: from psyche.kaba.or.jp (psyche.kaba.or.jp [202.249.19.1]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h2B1i2f25839 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:44:02 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.kaba.or.jp (cascade.kaba.or.jp [202.249.19.34]) by psyche.kaba.or.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C7722996; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:43:58 +0900 (JST) Received: from WARP (dhcp04.kaba.or.jp [202.249.19.39]) by mail.kaba.or.jp (Postfix) with SMTP id BD33549A6B; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:43:58 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <005d01c2e76f$92d0f8b0$2713f9ca@WARP> From: "Nicolas Cannasse" To: "Graham Guttocks" , References: <20030306232731.7374.qmail@web10305.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:43:10 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam: no; 0.00; cannasse:01 warplayer:01 caml-list:01 bagley's:01 shootout:01 rave:99 python:01 ocaml:01 nicolas:01 underlying:01 syntax:02 native:02 unit:03 string:03 typing:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > I discovered OCaml on Doug Bagley's computer shootout page where he > gives it a rave review over all the other languages he evaluated. > > After looking into it further, I'm just surprised that OCaml isn't > more popular. It seems to have all the rapid development features of > a scripting language like Python, but unlike scripting languages > offers fast native code like a compiled language. Seemingly the best > of both worlds. > > Any ideas why OCaml isn't more well known? Is it just because the > language is not as old as something like Python, or perhaps because > the syntax is more difficult to learn? There is few beginnings of answers two your question : - some people are telling that you need a PhD to fully understand (and appreciate) OCaml . That's somehow exagerate, but not so much, since you need to know at least several programming languages to really understand how Ocaml is great compared to them :) - about the syntax, I had some experience of teaching Ocaml to some people, plus my own Ocaml-learning experience. The current syntax take some time to get, but is quite good and brief once you got it. But you have to really understand the underlying typing algorithm when you got a type error. I think this is perhaps the biggest problem with OCaml syntax right now : while C/Java will tell you " missing ';' " , Ocaml will simply said " Syntax Error ". The same goes for typing. Just make write few lines to a beginner, he will hit into something like " this expression has type unit -> string but is here used with 'a -> unit" ( quite an obvious error message for people here, but perhaps a little bit difficult to get when you don't know the language ) Nicolas Cannasse ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners