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
[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: 2001-06-08 (00:32)
From: Miles Egan <miles@c...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:36:16PM +0200, William Chesters wrote:
> Miles Egan writes:
> Objectively, C++ is much harder to learn than ocaml and you have to be
> _brilliant_ to make the most of it without getting into trouble.  The
> point surely is that people are more familiar, or at least feel
> embarrassed about being unfamiliar, with the _jargon_ of C++ as
> against that of ocaml.

C++ is certainly a pathological worst case, and I can't really think of another
language as baroque and confusing (certainly not Ocaml).  I suppose the biggest
hurdles for programmers new to Ocaml are type theory and functional thinking.

Software development is an essentially complicated task these days, so good
tools will probably necessarily be somewhat complex too.  I certainly intend to
keep using and advocating Ocaml.  I'm mainly interested in finding out what
other working programmers are doing to sell it to their colleagues.

Bug reports:  FAQ:
To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: