Browse thread
[Caml-list] OCaml popularity
-
Graham Guttocks
- Gerd Stolpmann
- Nicolas Cannasse
- Martin Weber
[
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: | Brian Hurt <brian.hurt@q...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity |
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Daniel Bünzli wrote: > Very often what is needed is a way to figure out how you can do this or > that in the language along with relevant pointers in the documentation > graph. This is why I think that a bunch of well edited online tutorials > would do a better job; assuming that the reader has a minimal knowledge > of the language, something like the first two chapter of the ocaml > reference manual with a little more details. I have a theory (backed up with a fair bit of circumstancial evidence) that a large number of purchasing decisions are influenced by the number of running feet of books in the local bookstore are dedicated to the topic. The theory is (as I infer it) 'if I have a problem, I'll simply buy a book to tell me how to solve it. After all, look at all of these books! Surely one of them will be what I need!' Having *the* perfect introductory book is actually a detriment, as it discourages other books from entering the field, thus reducing your runnning foot total. Likewise, being intuitive or easy to understand is also a detriment, as this makes both for fewer books and for slimmer books. Much better to have multi-thousand page tomes (tombs?). And naturally, you can't measure running feet of web pages :-). Brian ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners