English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

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: 2003-03-13 (00:35)
From: oliver@f...
Subject: [oliver: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity]
----- Forwarded message from oliver -----

To: Brian Hurt <brian.hurt@qlogic.com>
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 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