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
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2009-04-01 (09:24)
From: FALCON Gilles RD-RESA-LAN <gilles.falcon@o...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] questions
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font size="+1">Hi,<br>
When M. Ober say the official material is of poor quality. i am French
and really surprise.<br>
I saw Xavier Leroy teach caml at the CNAM in france, and he know how to
The official document is not an ocaml curse, that's right. (The inria
is not pay for that )<br>
I totally agree that it would be pleasant to have more documentation on
Ocaml, especially if you don't have ocaml lesson.<br>
The reader are a little like you M. Ober, they like good quality and
when a book is not as good as they like, they have the same reaction as
I am disappointed because it is not the better encouragement.&nbsp;
Different views and usages of the language seems to me better than too
I will be happy to read article or book from you<br>
Gilles FALCON<br>
Xavier Leroy a &eacute;crit&nbsp;:
<blockquote cite="" type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">There must be some reason why the manual and other materials on the
official site are of such poor quality. I've thought a bit about it, and
the only reason I see is that the authors do not have a feel for what it
takes to learn/understand/use that language. They obviously know it all
through, but that's still far removed from being able to explain it to
someone else. I don't know, of course, how it is that one understands
something "well" yet is not able to explain it to somebody else. To me,
that's very fragile knowledge.
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
Because we are autistic morons who lack your rock-solid knowledge, if
I properly catch your (rather insulting) drift?

At the very least, you're confusing "to be able" with "to intend to".
The "tutorial" part of the OCaml reference manual was a quick job
targeted at readers who already know functional programming and just
want a quick overview of what's standard and what's different in
OCaml.  Maybe that shouldn't be titled "tutorial" at all.

Teaching functional programming in OCaml to beginners is a rather
different job, for which they are plenty of good books already.  Most
of them happen to be in French for various reasons: O'Reilly's refusal
to publish the English translation of the Chailloux-Manoury-Pagano
book; the Hickey-Rentsch controversy, etc.  But, yes, some talented
teachers invested huge amounts of time in writing good intro to Caml
programming books.  Don't brush their efforts aside.

One last word to you, that Xah Lee troll, and anyone else on this
list: if you're not happy with the existing material, write something
better.  Everyone will thank you and you'll get to better appreciate
the difficulty of the task.

- Xavier Leroy

Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href=""></a>
Archives: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href=""></a>
Beginner's list: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href=""></a>
Bug reports: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href=""></a>