RE: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection To O'Caml

RE: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection To O'Caml

[Brent Fulgham]

> BTW: people here read books. An English Ocaml book 
> would provide very strong support for industrial use.
> 
I'm in the process of reading "The Functional Approach
to Programming" (Cousineau & Mauny).  This book is not
strictly OCaml (it's based on CAML-Light), but it's
teaching me the basics I need.  It's also quite a good
book for learning functional programming techniques
in general.  It's not a bad price, either.  I found it
for $32 at Borders.com.

BTW -- Although it is a translation of a French book,
it is quite well-written.  Their editor/translator was
quite talented.  I can find very little in the way
of French syntax in the volume ;-)

Hope that's helpful,

-Brent

Re: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial ObjectionTo O'Caml

[Max Skaller]

Brent Fulgham wrote:
> 
> > BTW: people here read books. An English Ocaml book
> > would provide very strong support for industrial use.
> >
> I'm in the process of reading "The Functional Approach
> to Programming" (Cousineau & Mauny).  This book is not
> strictly OCaml 

That's part of the problem. People here are short of time:
while education in functional programming techniques is 
useful, a description of Ocaml is more pointed: remember,
Ocaml is _not_ a functional programming language, but an
Algol like language with functional, procedural, and object
oriented components... just like C++. 

In ocaml, the 'orientation' is more functional, but the biggest
obstacle isn't the functional paradigm as such, but the actual
concrete syntax used.

-- 
John (Max) Skaller at OTT [Open Telecommications Ltd]
mailto:maxs@in.ot.com.au      -- at work
mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au  -- at home