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] Is Caml a fraud ( especially on Windows )?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: olczyk@i...
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Is Caml a fraud ( especially on Windows )?
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:23:47 +0200 (MET DST), Pierre Weis
<> wrote:

>I thaught it was clear that this was a kind of joke (given the
>expressiosn "a bit special", "extremely addictive", "your last
>attempt", "it ensures that the process will long for years") and a
>sort of warm encouragement to keep on learning Caml, as testified by
>the smiley and the last phrase.
And yet most people who make jokes like these are just hiding their
arrogance behind humor.

>I would have been glad if you had understood: ``cool, he says I will
>spare years by choosing at once the right language to learn'', and if
>you had answered in the same humoristic manner.
Which is exactly the problem. Are you seriously saying that by
learning Caml, you have learned everything there is to learn
about programming? Maybe just the important stuff. ( It's clearly
obvious that you don't know what the idea behind "language of the
year" is. ) So are Monads and Arrows and ( what does Clean use for
output? ) are not worth learning? Goo's object model is insignificant?
BTW what kind of MOP does Caml use? What support does
it have for AOP?

>Furthermore, there is no lie in this message, it just told you the
>truth: the phrase
>   "Many people that learnt it seriously, just don't want to
>    give it up and go back to real programming with *p++ or null
>    pointers ..."
Or writing "advice"? This response alone shows the kind of tunnel
vision I mentioned.

BTW the people who I've met who hate *p++ and null pointers are
people who do use VB and *think* they are programmers. They then
go on to C++ and create huge messes by missusing *p++ and null
pointers. They then blame thed language instead of admitting their own
>> Often times when you see proponents say things like this, you soon
>> discover the emperor has no clothes. Such statements are often made
>> by people who lack diversity of experience in other programming
>> languages. 
>I suggest, you should not state such fact without justification: I
>mean, you don't even know the emperor, nor where he lives or what he
>looks like.
Maybe, maybe not. But when I see the emporer naked, I know he's naked.

>Second, if I am one of the ``people who lack diversity of experience
>in other programming languages'' that you mentioned, I'm just
>wandering if you know some facts about me, that could let you say so ?
>To my own knowledge, I have a pretty good experience on other
>programming languages, having written programs in a large number of
>them and having studied for years their syntax, static and dynamic
>semantics. I also have taught a lot of them to hordes of students.
Those who know do. Those who don't teach.
There is a big difference between "knowing" a language
snd having written code in it. Especially real world applications.

>> This causes a certain sort of tunnel vision in the way they perceive
>> things. Tools like debuggers are overestimated in their capabilities.
>> Languages features are touted way beyond their benefit. 
>I think you may have overlooked the capabilities of our debugger and
>you may just ignore our language features, their orthogonality and
Perhaps like Joaquin Cuenca Abela you are not familiar with the power
of debuggers in other languages.

As for language features, well that's the point of learning a
language. For now  I have to go by what others say. And from what you
say I feel that I have to take the "power of OCaml" with a grain of
To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: