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 (07:00)
From: David Fox <dsf@f...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity
Miles Egan <> writes:

> 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).

Not to belabor the obvious, but C++ has the huge advantage of being
(for all practical purposes) a superset of C.  Its like the mother of
all tutorials.
Bug reports:  FAQ:
To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: