From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40DBBBC69 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:51:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de (einhorn.in-berlin.de [192.109.42.8]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l7L9prQJ023748 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:51:54 +0200 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de X-Envelope-To: Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id l7L9pWPM003657 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:51:33 +0200 Received: (from www-data@localhost) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id l7L9pWva003655 for caml-list@inria.fr; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:51:32 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: einhorn.in-berlin.de: www-data set sender to oliver@first.in-berlin.de using -f Received: from dslb-088-073-099-124.pools.arcor-ip.net (dslb-088-073-099-124.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.73.99.124]) by webmail.in-berlin.de (IMP) with HTTP for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:51:32 +0200 Message-ID: <1187689892.46cab5a45112e@webmail.in-berlin.de> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:51:32 +0200 From: Oliver Bandel To: Caml-list List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] If OCaml were a car References: <20070818192157.GA11789@furbychan.cocan.org> <6806cf750708181324l724823c6w304f9088980c3316@mail.gmail.com> <46C76557.5050308@cs.caltech.edu> <56864F61-40F3-4F03-9823-6D510AD5320B@epfl.ch> <1187639685.46c9f1859d769@webmail.in-berlin.de> <1187657274.18344.9.camel@rosella.wigram> In-Reply-To: <1187657274.18344.9.camel@rosella.wigram> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.6 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 46CAB5B9.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; bandel:01 in-berlin:01 ocaml:01 0200,:01 bandel:01 ocaml's:01 syntax:01 ocaml:01 lib:01 refusal:98 trusting:98 sourceforge:01 imho:01 imho:01 wrote:01 Zitat von skaller : > On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 21:54 +0200, Oliver Bandel wrote: > > > Compared to that the discussions on OCaml's defficiencies are > > incomprehensible to me. > > Unfortunately not so. The syntax is only a minor issue IMHO. > There are a number of other annoyances. But the major issues are: > > (1.a) lack of dynamic loading (of native code) > -- hopefully to be fixed in 3.11 [...] Would be fine, but is not that necessary. > > (1.b) lack of multi-processing You mean parallelization on many processors? Well, Unix.fork could help, or OCamlP3l. > > (2.a) interoperability > -- with C libraries > -- with .NET libraries (F# isn't Ocaml) What do you mean with interoperability here? You have the possibility to marry C and OCaml, and it's relatively easy, compared to Perl for example (which is very ugly with that XS-stuff). > > (2.b) refusal of Inria team to provide a more complete library I do not really miss a lot in the library. Some more functions would be fine, but the missings are not so big, IMHO. People could add some items in the bug-database as feature wishes. If the wishes make sense, I think, they possibly will be implemented. But it does not make sense to ask for a complete rewrite. It takes too much time, does not bring so much advantages and stops them working at other things. So, if some really necessary things should be added, a feature-wish would make sense IMHO. And that must be concrete saying, what and why it is missed. Not something like "rewrite the lib, it misses so much". > > (3) lack of ISO or ECMA standardisation That would be fine, yes. > > We who use Ocaml are patient (fixes 1), > creative (fixes 2), and trusting (fixes 3), > which are three properties industry does not have. Does Perl have an ISO-standard? Or the ugly Visual Basic, which some big companies really are using? I think an ISO-standard could be fine, but it is not the criteria, why companies decide to use a language. IMHO, many (most) things that are used in industry are really bad things. And people insist on using bad langauges and bad systems, because they are accustomed to it, and some Lobbyists sell that stuff. But also, because certain tools will only be deklivered on certain systems (thoose ugly things). (But this I can understand as a reason, because somehow the work must be done.) Ciao, Oliver