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] suggestion: do not link to
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2004-04-14 (01:12)
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@c...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] suggestion: do not link to
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 04:25:45PM -0700, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> reasons.  A number of other languages have the features, and some have
> much better libraries, packages, and industrial provenness.  What OCaml
> apparently has is performance.

That's interesting but not the reason that I was attracted to it.

> The only thing I intensely dislike about the website is
> the slogan, "The programming tool of choice for discriminating hackers."
> This suggests that OCaml is a toy, used by exploratory geeks who don't
> know the value of a dollar.  I prefer INRIA's utter blandness to
>'s championing of the hacker geek ethic.

No, it suggests that OCaml is a real language that can be used to solve
real problems quickly, that it is not a "toy" language like BASIC, and
that it has some power wrt system-level programming.  Most of this is
true, though it is rather weak on the system-level programming side.

Both sites are functional.  The Humps at are quite valuable.
INRIA's page loads fast and I find what I want fast.  I fail to see any
problem there.

> Don't get me started on the Python Software Foundation's utter inability
> to market anything.

Why should they?  They're not a .com.  Python is doing quite well, I'd

-- John

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