From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98FE17EE51 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 04:39:58 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of nanaki@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.212.47; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="nanaki@gmail.com"; x-sender="nanaki@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of nanaki@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.47 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.212.47; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="nanaki@gmail.com"; x-sender="nanaki@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail-vb0-f47.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=209.85.212.47; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="nanaki@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-vb0-f47.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqgCAG1ppVHRVdQvk2dsb2JhbABZgzmwFIlniDZ9CBYOAQEBAQcLCwkUBCSCIwEBBAFAARsRAQsBAwELBgULDQ0hIgERAQUBChIGEwgKAodmAQMJBgydV4w/gn2FAgoZJwMKWId/AQUMjTyBSQQHg1QDiR+OHIEpjjIWKYJagXsc X-IPAS-Result: AqgCAG1ppVHRVdQvk2dsb2JhbABZgzmwFIlniDZ9CBYOAQEBAQcLCwkUBCSCIwEBBAFAARsRAQsBAwELBgULDQ0hIgERAQUBChIGEwgKAodmAQMJBgydV4w/gn2FAgoZJwMKWId/AQUMjTyBSQQHg1QDiR+OHIEpjjIWKYJagXsc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,762,1363129200"; d="scan'208";a="19373735" Received: from mail-vb0-f47.google.com ([209.85.212.47]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 29 May 2013 04:39:57 +0200 Received: by mail-vb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id x13so5920179vbb.34 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 19:39:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=yVDCOAZPe6anq1gSGCJykdFy8oE8WP0GqF4lc5Ds9vM=; b=ollb7RNePw+W+ejNVz+AmqM7Mqk/ZAOW2Qnwq5RwhDU9NlBtEhcWywSgb5hZ15psPK 2hkZvhHjlmz4OSo3muKr/hEAaX7jpaGhdtZaCeQKKnYZo/cSbxTy6xZJIdxwtY4Ehhze gjJu4gYB1WNvvuyolP2wtng8yeahrl4TqV7S/r8LfBL4tRVVy8HN00EYlW76JAeGK2KB SQQssNXW3egajnCm/mxmndVDkWsS0GT8z9THbvi2pbLFgUOQgWUt+hLD14++GuT4R+ua gUvn/t91gZM40JYJ/YsmbeYQ4Myy5VR0j0UOD4nci32SQnGpNRZZF5S3YHkwHDbR9JTM 5fKg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.188.82 with SMTP id fy18mr341859vec.41.1369795196783; Tue, 28 May 2013 19:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.25.4 with HTTP; Tue, 28 May 2013 19:39:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51A4272F.8050803@riken.jp> References: <20130523235355.GI6510@siouxsie> <20130526150008.GA2014@siouxsie> <20130526234911.41866xca7wgoirfb@webmail.in-berlin.de> <51A30E01.5070300@freenet.de> <20130527185345.e01a7733ac652f89f4e400f7@mega-nerd.com> <51A353BE.5030009@freenet.de> <51A40590.4090501@riken.jp> <20130528024413.GA4602@siouxsie> <51A4272F.8050803@riken.jp> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 19:39:56 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jeff Meister To: Francois Berenger Cc: Caml List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011847fa1e936104ddd24cd3 Subject: Re: Problems to get larger user base ... (Re: [Caml-list] OCaml's variables) --089e011847fa1e936104ddd24cd3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I hesitate to recommend Part I of the OCaml Manual as an introduction for new users because it is so terse and dense. It describes the core language on a single HTML page. Powerful features of great consequence are covered rapidly. For example, variant types are relegated to a single section with only three example types. I do not mean to complain about the OCaml Manual; its succinctness is a virtue. It assumes I am competent and does not waste my time. Nearly every sentence in Part I conveys vital information and should be read carefully. But people are not used to engaging with tutorials in this manner. They expect motivation (explanation of the reasoning behind various features) and hand-holding, which they can skip over or consult depending on their level of understanding. Ideally, they want to see an example that does something similar to whatever they're currently working on. Most people actively involved in the OCaml community right now have either read the language reference (i.e., Part II) or are capable of doing so if they wanted to. Many of them have substantial background in programming language theory. But the majority of programmers cannot learn the language in this way. I think appealing to them requires a more didactic method. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Francois Berenger wrote: > On 05/28/2013 11:44 AM, oliver wrote: > >> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:17:04AM +0900, Francois Berenger wrote: >> >>> On 05/27/2013 09:38 PM, Mr. Herr wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Am 27.05.2013 10:53, schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo: >>>> >>>>> Mr. Herr wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think the biggest problem is you generally can only learn FP and/or >>>>>> Ocaml at >>>>>> university, because: >>>>>> >>>>>> The FP terminology is at first (and a long time after starting >>>>>> learning it), without >>>>>> a teacher, not understandable. >>>>>> >>>>> Sorry, that's simply not true. >>>>> >>>>> I studied my last univeristy course in 1992. I picked up Ocaml in 2004 >>>>> and Haskell in 2008. Before Ocaml, the only functional language I had >>>>> used was scheme in the late 1980s. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Scheme is terribly functional, so to say, and is absolutely immerged in >>>> the Lispy slang. >>>> All your knowlegde in C, Java, PHP, Assembler, Tcl/Tk, Pascal ... will >>>> not help you >>>> there. >>>> >>>> I started as an IBM /370 Systems Admin in the late nineties, and it >>>> took me months of >>>> reading in 2012 >>>> to get some understanding about what the heck the scheme people are >>>> talking about. >>>> >>>> Scheme is even a better example for the problems non university >>>> learners encounter, >>>> than Ocaml, IMO. >>>> >>> >>> A very good book on scheme (which is also quite a deep introduction >>> to computer science if you read the whole thing in fact): >>> >>> "structure and interpretation of computer programs" >>> >>> http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/**full-text/book/book.html >>> >> [...] >> >> As language introduction it is too much text. >> It is meant as introduction to computer science. >> > > But what an introduction. ;) > > > AFAIK scheme was developed for this task. >> >> The scheme standard is not so hard to read, and it has only 50 pages. >> Thats IMHO better if someone looks for a introduction to the language >> only. >> >> For comparison: OCaml ref-man: 554 pages and IMHO not a good starting >> point. IMHO better are some of the introductional books out there, >> e.g. OCaml-Ora-book and jason Hickeys book. >> After that then the Refman. >> > > Honestly, I think "Part I An introduction to OCaml" > from "The OCaml system release 4.00 > Documentation and user=92s manual" > at > http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/**manual-ocaml/ > is enough for a start. > > I think you can even skip the Objects chapter in there. > And that's only pages 9 to 33 in the PDF version of the document. > > Regards, > F. > > > -- > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: > https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/**arc/caml-list > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/**ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-**bugs > --089e011847fa1e936104ddd24cd3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I hesitate to recommend Part I of the OCaml Manu= al as an introduction for new users because it is so terse and dense. It de= scribes the core language on a single HTML page. Powerful features of great= consequence are covered rapidly. For example, variant types are relegated = to a single section with only three example types.

I do not mean to complain about the OCaml Manual; its succinctnes= s is a virtue. It assumes I am competent and does not waste my time. Nearly= every sentence in Part I conveys vital information and should be read care= fully. But people are not used to engaging with tutorials in this manner. T= hey expect motivation (explanation of the reasoning behind various features= ) and hand-holding, which they can skip over or consult depending on their = level of understanding. Ideally, they want to see an example that does some= thing similar to whatever they're currently working on.

Most people actively involved in the OCaml community right now ha= ve either read the language reference (i.e., Part II) or are capable of doi= ng so if they wanted to. Many of them have substantial background in progra= mming language theory. But the majority of programmers cannot learn the lan= guage in this way. I think appealing to them requires a more didactic metho= d.


On Mon,= May 27, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Francois Berenger <berenger@riken.jp> wrote:
On 0= 5/28/2013 11:44 AM, oliver wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:17:04AM +0900, Francois Berenger wrote:
On 05/27/2013 09:38 PM, Mr. Herr wrote:

Am 27.05.2013 10:53, schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo:
Mr. Herr wrote:
I think the biggest problem is you generally can only learn FP and/or Ocaml= at
university, because:

The FP terminology is at first (and a long time after starting learning it)= , without
a teacher, not understandable.
Sorry, that's simply not true.

I studied my last univeristy course in 1992. I picked up Ocaml in 2004
and Haskell in 2008. Before Ocaml, the only functional language I had
used was scheme in the late 1980s.


Scheme is terribly functional, so to say, and is absolutely immerged in the= Lispy slang.
All your knowlegde in C, Java, PHP, Assembler, Tcl/Tk, Pascal ... will not = help you
there.

I started as an IBM /370 Systems Admin in the late nineties, and it took me= months of
reading in 2012
to get some understanding about what the heck the scheme people are talking= about.

Scheme is even a better example for the problems non university learners en= counter,
than Ocaml, IMO.

A very good book on scheme (which is also quite a deep introduction
to computer science if you read the whole thing in fact):

"structure and interpretation of computer programs"

http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html
[...]

As language introduction it is too much text.
It is meant as introduction to computer science.

But what an introduction. ;)


AFAIK scheme was developed for this task.

The scheme standard is not so hard to read, and it has only 50 pages.
Thats IMHO better if someone looks for a introduction to the language
only.

For comparison: OCaml ref-man: 554 pages and IMHO not a good starting
point. IMHO better are some of the introductional books out there,
e.g. OCaml-Ora-book and jason Hickeys book.
After that then the Refman.

Honestly, I think "Part I An introduction to OCaml"
from "The OCaml system release 4.00
Documentation and user=92s manual"
at
h= ttp://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/
is enough for a start.

I think you can even skip the Objects chapter in there.
And that's only pages 9 to 33 in the PDF version of the document.

Regards,
F.


--
Caml-list mailing list. =A0Subscription management and archives:
ht= tps://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners<= /a>
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

--089e011847fa1e936104ddd24cd3--