On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:14:26AM +0200, dmitry grebeniuk wrote:

>   Quite interesting, and maybe it is true, but I have more simple theory.
>   First time I knew about revised syntax only when started to write
> camlp4-extensions, and at that time I've used caml about one year.  No
> any note, nor even small remark about revised syntax was seen before
> reading camlp4 documentation.  Larry said right about impatience, lazyness
> and hubris:  most of us are too lazy to re-learn syntax of programming
> language after using it enough time.

In my brief time trying to use the revised syntax, I found it to be more
cumbersome.  The native syntax has a very terse feel to it.  I think the
inconsistencies actually help make it terse.

Dave

-------------------
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