On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, John Max Skaller wrote:
> Brian Rogoff wrote:
> > > The main difficulties we have faced have been --
> > > a) Education - Out here even for people skilled in scheme and some other
> > > functional languages, it is challenging to learn ocaml.
> > 
> > What have the issues been? I hate to mention this again (and again, ...) but
> > I find that beginners and non-experts stumble over syntax a lot.
> 
> 	The main problem is that the Tutorial and Reference are weak.
> If the Ocaml Consortium gets off the ground, this ought to be one
> of it's first tasks (i.e., hire a tech writer, not a programmer!)

Can one of the translators comment on the status of the O'Reilly book 
translation? Once that's available people can modify it as the language
changes. 

> 	I am constantly stumbling over syntax: even when the underlying
> principles are clear, it is hard to find the right syntax, and it
> is even harder to comprehend which constructions are actually
> supported by the compiler. My main source of information is postings
> to this list.

The mailing list archive has been a great source of help to me too. 

> > I would have said that it's ideal for VLSI design software (any other EDA
> > hackers out there?) so maybe it's just ideal for everything?
> 
> 	No. It isn't so good for low level systems software, (use C or C++)

Sorry, I was trying to be funny. As usual, jokes are too much of a serious 
business to be attempted by amateurs. I'll postfix all of my lame attempts 
at humor with ":-)" in the future :-)

-- Brian


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr