Browse thread
Re: [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: | Jonathan Coupe <jonathan@m...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity |
> Tore Lund <tl001@online.no> 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. > > 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'. > The biggest source of confusion I've noticed is with Occam - a pascaloid (?) language for parallel processing. - Jonathan ------------------- 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