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
[oliver: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity]
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: oliver@f...
Subject: [oliver: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity]
----- Forwarded message from oliver -----

To: Brian Hurt <>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 05:47:16PM -0600, Brian Hurt wrote:
> 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 :-).

Having *NO* such an introductional book, and only
high-graded PhD-stuff, would you call this a
detriment too?


----- End forwarded message -----

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: