Re: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity

[Tore Lund <tl001@online.no>]

Brian Rogoff wrote:
> 
> >       OTOH, Ocaml doesn't really _need_ fixing :-)
> 
> There are a few places where I think improvements can be made. From what
> I've read, INRIA is working on all of them.

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.

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.
-- 
    Tore

-------------------
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