Re: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity

[Nils Goesche <cartan@cartan.de>]

Tore Lund <tl001@online.no> writes:

> 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.

Earlier, when asked `which language do you use for it?' I used to
answer `Objective See Ay Em Ell', but people often thought I meant
`Objective C', then :-) Now I say `Objective Camel'.  It means a bit
more to them than just `Oh-Camel'.  Unfortunately, they get the
impression that it's some obscure object oriented language like
Smalltalk now, so I add `a functional language'.  When I typed the URL
caml.inria.fr into the browser of a British coworker of mine, he
pointed at the `fr' part and shouted `NO, NO!  UNACCEPTABLE!!' :-)

Regards,
-- 
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."

PGP key ID 0x42B32FC9

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