| > Oh. Ocaml again. Nothing forces you to read the posts you don't like. > Well, I'll chirp on the opposite side of discusion. The syntax is completely <->:%^&#$^ $% %^&*% up. Unreadable. Yes, it maybe somewhat pleasant to write code in such syntax, but readability sucks. Readability is mostly a matter of experience. > Which means that there are uncountably many ways to screw up the design And many ways to make it fit a given problem. It's again a matter of experience. > And each OCaml primadonna developer thinks that his way is the right way. And the rest can't read his code. Fuck that. Glad you give your opinion. Apparently you have an axe to grind against the OCaml community though. You could probably replace OCaml with any language with a lot of expressiveness, and still be correct - assuming there are "primadonna"s in the OCaml community and that "any other". Or do you mean that this happen only with OCaml? |
"It is totaly bogus claim." A single example of Perl, Brainfuck or Ocaml can prove that you are wrong. "The only people that can't read their own Perl after 6 months are the people that don't really know Perl." "Replace "perl" with "APL" or "BrainFuck" (or any language with baroque syntax) and the above sentence is as (in)valid."