Xah Lee wrote:
> ok, i've been reading these Ocaml tutorials in the past few days:
>
> intro to ocaml, from official site
> http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/manual003.html
>
> “Objective CAML Tutorial”, most cited tutorial on the web
> http://www.ocaml-tutorial.org/
>
> The best one, i
Just a quick relpy.
Jon's tutorial:
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/chapter1.html
is by far the best tutorial of Ocaml.
It is far better than the official intro to ocaml at
“caml.inria.fr” or the popularly cited tutorial at
“ocaml-tutorial.org” .
Jon's tutorial, namel
Addendum:
The above is not a terrible insight, but i suppose it should be useful
for some application. Today, there's huge number of languages, each
screaming ME! To name a few that are talked about by geekers, there's
Arc, Clojure, Scalar, F#, Erlang, Ruby, Groovy, Python 3, Perl6. (for
a big lis
Language, Purity, Cult, and Deception
Xah Lee, 2009-01-24
[this essay is roughly a 10 years personal retrospect of some
languages, in particular Scheme and Haskell.]
I learned far more Ocaml in the past 2 days than the fucking 2 months
i tried to learn Haskell, with 10 years of “I WANT TO BELIEV
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
> The haskell tutorials you can find online are the most mothefucking
> stupid unreadable fuck. The Haskll community is almost stupid. What
> they talk all day is about monads, currying, linder myer fuck type.
> That's what they talk about all day. A
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Xah Lee wrote:
> The haskell tutorials you can find online are the most mothefucking
> stupid unreadable fuck. The Haskll community is almost stupid. What
> they talk all day is about monads, currying, linder myer fuck type.
> That's what they talk about all day.
ok, i've been reading these Ocaml tutorials in the past few days:
intro to ocaml, from official site
http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/manual003.html
“Objective CAML Tutorial”, most cited tutorial on the web
http://www.ocaml-tutorial.org/
None of them are perfect, but much better than h
recently, as you might have noted by a previous post of mine, that
American Mathematical Society published a series of articles on formal
proofs in 2008 November. See: http://www.ams.org/notices/200811/ The
articles are:
• Formal Proof by Thomas Hales
• Formal Proof — The Four-Color Theorem by G
