From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p9FAPCVY009196 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:25:17 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah0BAMBemU7U4367kWdsb2JhbABDhHajbyIBAQEBCQsLBxQDIoFuAQEFI1YQCxgCAiYCAiE2BhMJh3gGpGaRO4EwhUCBFASMRoxdhQWHKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,350,1315173600"; d="scan'208";a="113014941" Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 15 Oct 2011 12:25:17 +0200 Received: from office1.lan.sumadev.de (dslb-188-097-008-077.pools.arcor-ip.net [188.97.8.77]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LeQDB-1QizPF30qz-00pwhU; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:25:16 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.107] (546B3B6F.cm-12-4a.dynamic.ziggo.nl [84.107.59.111]) by office1.lan.sumadev.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 314A7C00C7; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:25:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerd Stolpmann To: Jean Krivine Cc: Nicolas Bros , "caml-list@inria.fr" , Adam Richardson In-Reply-To: References: <4E8B826E.2090904@frisch.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:25:15 +0200 Message-ID: <1318674315.16477.396.camel@thinkpad> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:TSWqwh8mG+1LMDhw2j9jCVLGMQnjaXW2v2mAldGIdyC JITWse51x1+1FeObOTMYbGcHFnixK5FTJbGM/l2vngnUVyUPJQ Cj0LKLJkubwZH1fnAx7pe6IcDu5W20Vv5GEUEooFj81WGKJJz1 6yQnruECOZXe0s/sZpFJVHAKn4jAtXoa42eKrPH2WGJcFijddy tAold8JPYHZhz1jZPlXiDglP9xB7cSenONc/0zEz+MOZ+ZuIeK No3UgpfIZMzGMwOqSGw2vEB8PCKiw5YUMCKkmK7GWlgXmhqPh7 SJ3pFsBgrC9d6+wczS4SfofM/Ik5jn9+AegjYX5KqknMnRW7V9 6c+5AN+JWS/1D9AhiPCFlIM+Mf+CCenn5l9GwncwC Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id p9FAPCVY009196 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] 'OCaml For the Masses' on Slashdot This leads to nowhere. If we look at natural languages (as approximation to "thinking"), neither paradigm can be well expressed. Sure, we can describe a sequence of steps easily ("do this, then do that, then do the third thing"), but it quickly ends when you try to describe loops. There are also ways of expressing functional thinking in languages ("the faster I run the quicker I reach the destination" - time as function of speed). The issue is probably more that procedural thinking is trained in programing classes, while functional thinking is not. Neither of the paradigms is really close to humans as such. Gerd Am Freitag, den 14.10.2011, 13:50 +0200 schrieb Jean Krivine: > In the comments: > "Procedural programming is easier for humans to understand: most of us > do no not think in a way that maps easily to functional programming. " > > That a very functional thought to me :) > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Nicolas Bros > wrote: > If a great OCaml guru/teacher wrote a great book, I'm > sure it would have great sales on Amazon (I'd buy > it :) > > You may want to read this book : > http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/oreilly-book/html/index.html > > > It is the english translation of the french book > "Développement d'applications avec Objective Caml": > http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/Livres/ora/DA-OCAML/index.html > http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/2841771210 > -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gerd Stolpmann, Darmstadt, Germany gerd@gerd-stolpmann.de Creator of GODI and camlcity.org. Contact details: http://www.camlcity.org/contact.html Company homepage: http://www.gerd-stolpmann.de *** Searching for new projects! Need consulting for system *** programming in Ocaml? Gerd Stolpmann can help you. ------------------------------------------------------------