Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2001-06-15 (14:04)
From: Nils Goesche <cartan@c...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity
Tore Lund <> 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 into the browser of a British coworker of mine, he
pointed at the `fr' part and shouted `NO, NO!  UNACCEPTABLE!!' :-)

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

PGP key ID 0x42B32FC9

Bug reports:  FAQ:
To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: