Browse thread
[Caml-list] ocaml complexity
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | David Fox <dsf@f...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity |
Miles Egan <miles@caddr.com> 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: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr