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 LAA06586; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:54:23 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA06250 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:54:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail.cs.uu.nl (sunset.cs.uu.nl [131.211.80.32]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f9P9sM118393 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:54:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from silvester.cs.uu.nl (silvester.cs.uu.nl [131.211.80.119]) by mail.cs.uu.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 954AB4538; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:54:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by silvester.cs.uu.nl (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:54:21 +0200 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:54:21 +0200 From: Frank Atanassow To: Rolf Wester Cc: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Whither the Caml Consortium? Message-ID: <20011025115421.A778@cs.uu.nl> References: <3BD45BC0.22418.66F4596F@localhost>; <20011023122210.A10422@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at> <3BD58FBC.24509.6BA76944@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3BD58FBC.24509.6BA76944@localhost>; from rolf.wester@ilt.fhg.de on Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 03:41:48PM +0200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Rolf Wester wrote (on 23-10-01 15:41 +0200): > But even if you have a killer-app written in OCaml you will still have to explain > to your manager (and even more your colleagues) why you would not have > been able to write this app in C++ or Java (or why it would have been much > more effort to do it in another language). I think that because competing > languages are advertised with buzzwords and their list of "advantages" > OCaml should be advertised too. OCaml's features should be compared to > other languages and statements made concerning other languages should > objectively be analyzed and criticized. And if for a certain kind of application > another language is more suitable this should also be clearly stated. I think > this could help those who are looking for an alternative to the main stream > languages and those who have to argue in favour of using OCaml. Not that I want to become embroiled in a discussion on the finer points of propaganda---oops, `advocacy', but you can find such a buzzword list here: http://pauillac.inria.fr:80/caml/FAQ/general-eng.html and here (for SML, but all the points still hold except the last two): http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/what/smlnj/sml.html Suitable for pointing your colleague to, if (s)he wants to know what (CA)ML is all about. -- Frank Atanassow, Information & Computing Sciences, Utrecht University Padualaan 14, PO Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, Netherlands Tel +31 (030) 253-3261 Fax +31 (030) 251-379 ------------------- 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