On 19/08/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">John Carr</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:jfc@mit.edu">jfc@mit.edu</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>OCaml has a badly designed syntax processed by a badly implemented<br>parser feeding into a backend that generates poor error messages.<br>All this makes the language hard to use.&nbsp; <br></blockquote></div><br>I would just like to know, what exactly do you think is badly designed, and what would be a better alternative? Mind that I am not defending OCaml&#39;s syntax here (I have grown accustumed to it, but I do not find it superb... probably...), I just think that all criticism should be constructive (that is, shut up unless you&#39;ve got a better idea). I would also like to hear some improvements that could be made to the syntax (of OCaml or possibly some future functional language), as I think that currently, OCaml syntax is better than both SML and Haskell.
<br><br>One possible complaint I see here is too many parenthenses and therefore confusing eror messages, however I prefer denser code to the way it was &quot;fixed&quot; in the revised syntax by adding more closing terminals...
<br><br>&nbsp;- Tom<br><br>(I hope you get what I&#39;m saying... I&#39;m somehow lost...)<br>