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 JAA18354; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:13:16 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 JAA18601 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:13:14 +0100 (MET) Received: from moldavcable.com (moldavcable.bendery.md [193.201.204.34]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hBU8D9v22367 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:13:11 +0100 (MET) Received: by moldavcable.com (Postfix, from userid 541) id 6EFAA83EAB; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:14:26 +0200 (EET) Received: from pm053.mlc (unknown [192.168.50.53]) by moldavcable.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F8683EA3; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:14:26 +0200 (EET) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:14:26 +0200 From: dmitry grebeniuk Reply-To: dmitry grebeniuk Organization: Moldavcable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1609002433.20031230101426@moldavcable.com> To: David Brown Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml syntax. In-Reply-To: <20031223164721.GA9202@davidb.org> References: <1072152186.59938.30.camel@tylere> <20031223085259.GA2000@fistandantilus.takhisis.org> <20031223164721.GA9202@davidb.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; grebeniuk:01 caml-list:01 camlp:01 camlp:01 lazyness:01 inconsistent:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 caml:01 dmitry:01 dmitry:01 syntax:02 syntax:02 lazy:02 native:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hello, David. DB> The revised syntax to ocaml attempts to provide an cleaner, more DB> consistent syntax for the language, and it does a fairly good job of it. DB> However, I don't see very much code written in the revised syntax. I've DB> thought about why, and come up with an interesting theory. DB> The native ocaml syntax has a bunch of strange inconsistencies. Human DB> languages also tend to have lots of inconsistencies, especially around DB> the core words. Perhaps there is something about our brains that works DB> best when the core aspect of a language is inconsistent. Quite interesting, and maybe it is true, but I have more simple theory. First time I knew about revised syntax only when started to write camlp4-extensions, and at that time I've used caml about one year. No any note, nor even small remark about revised syntax was seen before reading camlp4 documentation. Larry said right about impatience, lazyness and hubris: most of us are too lazy to re-learn syntax of programming language after using it enough time. -- wbr, dmitry mailto:gds-mlsts@moldavcable.com ------------------- 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