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
If OCaml were a car
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2007-08-19 (16:23)
From: brogoff <brogoff@s...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] If OCaml were a car
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007, John Carr wrote:
> > Maybe I ride this car too often to realize (or I'm dumb) but I don't
> > get the joke about controls.
> OCaml has a badly designed syntax processed by a badly implemented
> parser feeding into a backend that generates poor error messages.
> All this makes the language hard to use.  Anybody else learn C
> using pcc on Unix?

I'm not a fan of the current syntax or error handling either. What's the
way out? Revised didn't catch on widely, though it fixes a few of the
syntactic flaws. Now it appears that Revised will fracture into two
streams, one with camlp4 and the other with camlp5. That isn't a good

One of the better compilers I used for syntactic error messages was
GNAT, the free Ada 95 one, and the parser was hand coded recursive
descent (Ada's provided grammars are NOT even close to LL(1), either)
and the diagnostics were superb.

-- Brian