Thanks on your input.
I fully agree on this.
See? One more opinion.
The question why a programming language is successful in is a different one as the question why a programming language is successful.
What is successful in this terms?
Wide spread usage by the community? Then is OCaml not very successful yet.
Does this mean its bad?
So, the question is more, what makes sense. Within the meaning of what leads to our goals.
So, we can agree on the point that this is nice for newbies AND more experienced developers?
Thanks for sharing these ones, i will take a look on the first two now.
MC-OCaml is also one of the many reasons, why I love OCaml.
It shows to me, that OCaml is capable to adopt new features, even when they require fundamental changes.
I would love to see more of this in the public, A LOT of awesome features in OCaml are even more hidden as itself, which means a lot.
All those features count in, when you choose OCaml at all.
How can such a nice feature set count in, once the language design scares them away?
Well, I like to state that this is critic on an already very high level.
Same as Reason is a syntax for JS people, can we provide a syntax for programming newbies as well. And OCaml is already near to this just right now. ^-^
OCaml is obviously very much suitable for beginners, why does the community put such less spotlight on this aspect of the language?
OCaml provides an even more clutter free experience as traditional eduction languages, thanks to its awesome type inference, so it is very well suited from that point of view.
P.S: Ruby and Python are also popular since decades by providing an easy syntax and a beginner friendly community, so its possible to get popular by a nice sytnax