Re: [Caml-list] Use of OCaml in universities and engineering schools

[Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@recoil.org>]

OPAM is just one component of the OCaml Platform we're working on
at the moment.  The Platform design and implementation currently underway
is looking at the build/test/documentation tool situation, as well as
making it easier to utilise third party standard libraries.

This is still a work-in-progress, but if you want to participate in
thrashing out the gory details, do feel free to join the mailing list at:
http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/platform

A very useful aspect of the current OCaml toolchain is how little
change is needed to build all of this.  OCaml-4+ exports the compiler
libraries, exports the typed AST via bin-annot, and OPAM generally makes
it easier to rebuild the toolchain in cases where patches to the core are
required.

-anil

On 18 Mar 2013, at 09:07, Simon Cruanes <simon.cruanes.2007@m4x.org> wrote:

> Wouldn't promoting the use of an extended standard library, like
> Batteries or Core, in addition to a friendly toplevel such as utop help
> making the language nicer to beginners? Opam makes it easier to use
> them; the biggest source of complexity from there is imho how to build
> programs (which build system to chose, how to have it use the libraries
> with findlib, etc.).
> 
> All this is very easy and natural in python: the standard library is
> big, you can write programs with networking, http, serialization,
> databases very easily, there is no build system (nor 'annoying' typing
> that prevents from writing `1 + 2.0 < 3L`). Ipython can also be used for
> the 'nice toplevel' part. This is also partly true for universities that
> use Java, since IDEs like eclipse provide autocompletion and hide the
> build system away... Even `ghc --make` and ghci are much easier than
> ocamlbuild and ocaml's toplevel (which doesn't even have readline).
> 
> So I think this explains the high threshold for starting with OCaml.
> 
> Simon
> 
> On 03/18/2013 03:00 PM, Yaron Minsky wrote:
>> I know of few places in the US that teach Haskell in the intro
>> sequence.  The main concern, I think, is that teaching imperative
>> programming in Haskell requires too much sophistication.
>> 
>> That said, I think there are a decent number of places in Europe that
>> do teach Haskell in the intro sequence, so YMMV.
>> 
>> My sense is that in the US, ML has quite a good spot relative to other
>> languages when it comes to University teaching.  The primary languages
>> people teach with in elite US institutions are, I think:
>> 
>> - Java
>> - Python
>> - C
>> - OCaml/SML
>> - Scheme
>> 
>> With Java and Python having the lion's share.  C and OCaml/SML are
>> most often taught as part of the "advanced" intro class.
>> 
>> I think this is a real opportunity for OCaml.  If we can make OCaml
>> much easier to use for newbies who want to do something outside of
>> class, I think it's a real chance to reach a wider audience.  OPAM
>> gets us a chunk of the way, but there's more work to do beyond that.
>> 
>> y
>> 
>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Lukasz Stafiniak <lukstafi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Evolution isn't about how much you achieve but about how well you compete.
>>> How do we stand in relation to Haskell in education? Or is your worry solely
>>> about giving ground to Python?
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
>