Shalom, Joel.
>> Is such inertia is so good? Revised syntax has many
>> advantages over original one, and when I see people keep
>> using original syntax and dislike revised syntax, it reminds
>> me how imperative/OO programmers hold their C/C++/Java and
>> can't even think of more appealing alternatives.
JR> You are quite forceful, aren't you? Revised syntax
JR> clearly has some beauty but it's in the eyes of the
JR> beholder. I like the old syntax myself and you haven't
JR> demonstrated its advantages 
.
There are too many advantages to demonstrate each of
them. See page
http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/tutorial-camlp4/tutorial005.html
for almost complete list. This description of revised
syntax contains not only its specification, but a
rationales about each difference between these two
syntaxes.
Although original syntax allows to write code with
less "punctuation" symbols and the code looks nicer,
revised syntax targets at code safety.
You can think that revised syntax is ugly, but
usually it's the matter of taste (and, of course, I
respect your personal preferences). But I doubt you can
find any differences where original syntax is more safe.
If you will find such differences, please write, it will
be very interesting to discuss them.
--
WBR,
dmitry mailto: gds-mlsts%40moldavcable.com">gds-mlsts
moldavcable.com
.
