From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B2A9BC69 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:30:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.189]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l7JKUusu014776 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:30:56 +0200 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g13so656532nfb for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:30:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=MjP/wY2+NDNafwfvNTbVfHdjJSxkBn5opjItD1IFfwTC4d/MsGlyJbjM1Ezu7QPzvLqDH0V+aUdxZW2QDNMuE5VvFlWqMJYnryuMJW+KDagk1MEQLBcuytOHqqSl7PmJOzDYUAAkzcJBUlDeFZjR1p7TrSTOFbb6nKSI76LudK4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=q0Ry6V+qqzI4FukLKiM3C5KxkomAFODODsau5VKr1FAKE3CbwjfLqCu9pU+hvDZm0gFSeW3aCtp8Dr0FJrYG6tJ2kZSnKJH6Vlk6G+ReMrWpd2W8kyEvKvJ+gclhYGS+HNpJidqAUfOy84vtihqTgB5UEp+1TWr1jMYTtXdxJ80= Received: by 10.78.204.20 with SMTP id b20mr1598578hug.1187555455443; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.189.19 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:30:55 +0200 From: Tom To: "John Carr" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] If OCaml were a car Cc: "Caml-list List" In-Reply-To: <200708191443.l7JEhEQ8007374@psi-phi.mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_171968_15645904.1187555455409" References: <56864F61-40F3-4F03-9823-6D510AD5320B@epfl.ch> <200708191443.l7JEhEQ8007374@psi-phi.mit.edu> X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 46C8A880.000 on discorde : j-chkmail score : X : 0/20 1 0.000 -> 1 X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 46C8A880.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 syntax:01 parser:01 ocaml's:01 syntax:01 haskell:01 parser:01 ocaml's:01 haskell:01 sml:01 sml:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 X-Attachments: cset="UTF-8" cset="UTF-8" ------=_Part_171968_15645904.1187555455409 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 19/08/07, John Carr wrote: > > > OCaml has a badly designed syntax processed by a badly implemented > parser feeding into a backend that generates poor error messages. > All this makes the language hard to use. > 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'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'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. 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 "fixed" in the revised syntax by adding more closing terminals... - Tom (I hope you get what I'm saying... I'm somehow lost...) ------=_Part_171968_15645904.1187555455409 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 19/08/07, John Carr <jfc@mit.edu> wrote:

OCaml has a badly designed syntax processed by a badly implemented
parser feeding into a backend that generates poor error messages.
All this makes the language hard to use. 

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'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'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.

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 "fixed" in the revised syntax by adding more closing terminals...

 - Tom

(I hope you get what I'm saying... I'm somehow lost...)
------=_Part_171968_15645904.1187555455409--