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: 2001-06-06 (17:28)
From: Chris Hecker <checker@d...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity

>Have others had similar experiences?  I suspect most of the readers of this list
>are better-than-average programmers.  How difficult have you found it to be to
>teach Ocaml to your colleagues?  Any suggestions on a simple pedagogy for
>bringing more junior people abreast of subjects as esoteric as polymorphic
>recursive types?

I agree that Ocaml is big and powerful, and I even think it's kind of ugly.  ;)  However, I've been learning it in stages so I don't agree with your statement about not being able to use subsets.

Features I'm using:  

closures, local and anonymous functions, libraries, imperative stuff, experimenting with higher order functions (but usually just 1st order (2nd?), where a function takes a function), tiny bit of currying, genlex parsers, nested data structures

Features I'm not using right now:

objects, heavy modules, functors, streams (besides simple genlex things), heavy duty polymorphism, threads, lazy

I haven't taught anyone to use Ocaml completely, but I've walked non-functional (!) programmers through my code and they seem like they could get it.


To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: