Re: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity

[Doug Bagley <doug@bagley.org>]

Tore Lund wrote:
> The one thing that definitely needs fixing if OCaml is ever to catch on
> is the *name*.  For my own part it took some time before my brain even
> registered that there was such a language, and I am sure this was due to
> the unwieldy abbreviation "OCaml" - it looks like a typo or line noise
> the first time you see it.

I respectfully disagree!  OCaml is a wonderful name.  Consider how much
easier it is to find OCaml resources via a search engine, compared to
C#, or C--, for example :-)

> Audially, few people would realize that "oh camel" refers to a computer
> language.  In fact, in most European languages it is probably heard as a
> chivalrous way to address a camel ...
> 
> One might choose a new name like "Milner", "Weis", "Leroy", etc.  But if
> rocking the boat that much is not acceptable, just "Caml" would be much
> better than "OCaml", and "Camel" would be even better.

It is strange but this same idea just popped up on comp.lang.tcl ... "Tcl
isn't popular ... it must be because the name isn't sexy!"  (See thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&th=62d53dbb9f3ebba1,32)

I think it is far more important to have good marketing, good
introductory materials, some killer apps/libraries, and a vigorous
and helpful user community.

Cheers,
Doug
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr