From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id CAA00755; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 02:20:43 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA00716 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 02:20:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ip208.usw4.rb1.pdx.nwlink.com (ip208.usw4.rb1.pdx.nwlink.com [209.20.133.208]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with SMTP id f5B0KeL04852 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 02:20:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 19600 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jun 2001 00:20:36 -0000 Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:20:36 -0700 From: leary@nwlink.com To: Jonathan Coupe Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity Message-ID: <20010610172036.A19470@jean> References: <20010607015821.B11344@jean> <002c01c0ef7f$e154f3e0$5d26883e@baby> <20010608024102.A13672@jean> <003601c0f016$7ac12940$a00bfea9@baby> <20010608154623.A15375@jean> <001c01c0f134$0cc4ee80$c9d8893e@baby> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <001c01c0f134$0cc4ee80$c9d8893e@baby>; from jonathan@meanwhile.freeserve.co.uk on Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 11:32:20PM +0100 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 11:32:20PM +0100, Jonathan Coupe wrote: > No. What I said was that you won't convice sceptical colleagues that you're > right in choosing ocaml until you ship. Didn't you see the winky smiley and the "But seriously..."? But I disagree anyway; there's no way to know exactly when people will be convinced of something. For example, a milestone or two on a large project might be enough; and shipping two products might not be. > You certainly won't > convince anyone that ocaml was the right choice by saying that you're > developing faster "from day one" as you claimed. People make claims that all > the time. They're usually wrong. In fact, making claims like will reduce > crdibility - unless you've got unusually tight metrics to back you're claim > up. From your comments, I'm pretty sure you've never been a lead on a > commercial project. Actually, what I *asked* was, "How much time and money do development teams spend creating and tracking down memory management errors in C and C++ starting on day one?". 'Not much' was your answer. I didn't argue with that. But since you bring it up again... Having to address memory management is a cost in time and/or money associated with development in C and C++ -- you must address the issue *somehow*. Not having to deal with memory management is an immediate and ongoing benefit, *however small*, from using OCaml rather than C or C++. And before you say it, yes, this is probably going to be outweighed by the availability of off the shelf components and libraries, and the fact that it's easier and maybe cheaper to find replacement programmers for a popular language, among a number of other factors which would likely tend to make development faster in those languages. > Hmm. No one I've ever met uses GnuSmalltalk. My understanding from people > who have tried is that its only marginall usable. The standard open source > smalltalk is Squeak. Ruby, a Smalltalk cousin, is probably alos worth > looking at - and is spreading like wildfire. You can find more Smalltalk > stuff at www.stic.org Mea culpa, I just searched on Google for "smalltalk free" and went to the first link, 'cause I got warm fuzzies when I saw "GNU". I still don't like all OOP, all the time, tho'. Didn't know that about Ruby; interesting. I read it's all the rage in Japan. Go figure. ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr