[Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi everybody,

I am very sorry to announce here that the attitude of the direction of
the caml team is seriously comprimizing the future of Camlp4. I would
like you to send messages to stop that. Thank you if you can help.

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Chris Hecker]

It's obviously clear from the list archives that people think campl4 is a 
very good thing.  It's a great and useful tool.  It makes the ocaml system 
more powerful.  It's a win.  From a user's perspective, it is by far better 
if it is included in the main distribution/installation so my programs can 
use it and be portable to other people's installations.

It would be great if the drama associated with it could just go away...as 
we say here in the states, "Can't we all just get along?"  It's impossible 
to tell who is at "fault" in the machinations from the weird snippets we 
see on the list, but I doubt any user on the list actually gives a flying 
lambda.  We just want to use ocaml.  You guys all need some group therapy, 
and to resolve your differences like adults, and get back to work.

Thanks for a great language,
Chris

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Oleg]

On Sunday 06 October 2002 02:55 pm, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> I am very sorry to announce here that the attitude of the direction of
> the caml team is seriously comprimizing the future of Camlp4.

Hi

Could you explain what you mean by "compromising the future of Camlp4"? I 
thought Camlp4 project was not affiliated with the O'Caml project / team.

I don't use Camlp4 to create new grammars, etc. myself, but I'm very fond of 
being able to use the revised syntax with O'Caml.

Cheers,
Oleg
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi Chris,

On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 12:23:51PM -0700, Chris Hecker wrote:

> It would be great if the drama associated with it could just go
> away...

I absolutely agree with you. It is the reason why I speak about it.
I don't want that you, users, discover, after several years, that
something goes wrong in the OCaml team. It is better to speak about
it now, to be sure that you build your programs on something solid.

> You guys all need some group therapy, and to resolve your
> differences like adults, and get back to work.

Probably, yes.

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 03:29:59PM -0400, Oleg wrote:

> Could you explain what you mean by "compromising the future of Camlp4"?
> I thought Camlp4 project was not affiliated with the O'Caml project / team.

It would be good, indeed, that Camlp4 be separated from OCaml, but
the direction of the OCaml team refuses that energically. However
it was a good compromise.

He jeopardizes the future of Camlp4 because he gives me two choices:
either return working on the ocaml/camlp4 version (what I refuse), or
quit the projet. And if I quit the projet, who is going to improve
Camlp4?

Ok Camlp4 will not die then: it will just be maintained, debugged,
just like Caml Light. No future developpment can happen, since nobody
knows Camlp4 like me.

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Alessandro Baretta]

Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 03:29:59PM -0400, Oleg wrote:
> 
> 
>>Could you explain what you mean by "compromising the future of Camlp4"?
>>I thought Camlp4 project was not affiliated with the O'Caml project / team.
> 
> 
> It would be good, indeed, that Camlp4 be separated from OCaml, but
> the direction of the OCaml team refuses that energically. However
> it was a good compromise.
> 
> He jeopardizes the future of Camlp4 because he gives me two choices:
> either return working on the ocaml/camlp4 version (what I refuse), or
> quit the projet. And if I quit the projet, who is going to improve
> Camlp4?

 >:-|

Why in the world do you guys take such strong stands in your 
respective positions? I am no one to give you advice, but, 
really, take it easy...

> Ok Camlp4 will not die then: it will just be maintained, debugged,
> just like Caml Light. No future developpment can happen, since nobody
> knows Camlp4 like me.

As an aside, what is the purpose of developing Caml Light, 
anyway. Should it not simply be superseded by O'Caml?

Alex

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 10:24:08PM +0200, Alessandro Baretta wrote:

> Why in the world do you guys take such strong stands in your 
> respective positions? I am no one to give you advice, but, 
> really, take it easy...

I insist because I consider that as important, what the direction does
not. And be sure that I shall not quit that fight.

If OCaml wants to succeed in the industry, some reflexions must not be
tolerated: the direction of OCaml refuses to understand that elementary
point and prefer think that the problem is me.

> As an aside, what is the purpose of developing Caml Light, 
> anyway. Should it not simply be superseded by O'Caml?

It is not developped any more, but there are still users. Therefore,
the bugs are fixed. If I quit developping Camlp4, there will be no
more developpments on it, and it will be like Caml Light: you will be
able to use it, but for the improvements, it is terminated.

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Dave Mason]

I agree 100% with Chris: Chill out guys!

>>>>> On Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:01:28 +0200, Daniel de Rauglaudre <daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr> said:

> Hi, On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 03:29:59PM -0400, Oleg wrote:

>> Could you explain what you mean by "compromising the future of
>> Camlp4"?  I thought Camlp4 project was not affiliated with the
>> O'Caml project / team.

> It would be good, indeed, that Camlp4 be separated from OCaml, but
> the direction of the OCaml team refuses that energically. However it
> was a good compromise.

I think camlp4 is a very interesting system, but there are many cool
things in the world, and I don't have time to get deeply into all of
them.  All I really care about is that there be some convenient way to
do parsers built into ocaml (i.e. without lex/yacc - and yes, there
are lots of times I'm willing to pay any resulting efficiency penalty).
I don't know who decided that camlp4 was the way to do that, but
somebody did, and so I hope that at least that much of camlp4 comes as
part of the ocaml distribution.

It may meet your (Daniel's) personal wishes that camlp4 be separated
from ocaml, but I think that for the rest of us, it is better that it
be shipped with ocaml.

Good luck and good wishes to all trying to clean up the personal mess.

../Dave
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Oleg]

On Sunday 06 October 2002 04:01 pm, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 03:29:59PM -0400, Oleg wrote:
> > Could you explain what you mean by "compromising the future of Camlp4"?
> > I thought Camlp4 project was not affiliated with the O'Caml project /
> > team.
>
> It would be good, indeed, that Camlp4 be separated from OCaml, but
> the direction of the OCaml team refuses that energically. However
> it was a good compromise.
>
> He jeopardizes the future of Camlp4 because he gives me two choices:
> either return working on the ocaml/camlp4 version (what I refuse), or
> quit the projet. And if I quit the projet, who is going to improve
> Camlp4?

Daniel, 

I'm still not sure I understand (BTW I did not know Camlp4 was being 
integrated into O'Caml itself) 

You are saying that "[integrating Camlp4 into O'Caml] was a good compromise", 
but you are *also* saying that you are refusing to work on Camlp4 as part of 
O'Caml.  Why?

Pardon my ignorance, but is the offer to work on Camlp4 as part of O'Caml 
some sort of demotion for you at INRIA, or is the whole conflict merely about 
the location of Camlp4 in the CVS tree?

(I'm just curious as to what's going on)

Cheers
Oleg 
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 04:28:43PM -0400, Dave Mason wrote:

> I don't know who decided that camlp4 was the way to do that, but
> somebody did, and so I hope that at least that much of camlp4 comes as
> part of the ocaml distribution.

I did. Actually, the streams are just syntactic sugar, and their place
is in a preprocessor. In the very first version of OCaml, there were
no streams. I had added them, because there were not Camlp4 at this
time.

The problem of the streams inside OCaml is that the generated code
is very inefficient. To be more efficient, one has to optimize the
code (the generated source code), and it is very easy to do with
Camlp4 (thanks to the quotations) and very hard in OCaml (no
quotation and, moreover, a syntax tree too complicated).

> It may meet your (Daniel's) personal wishes that camlp4 be separated
> from ocaml, but I think that for the rest of us, it is better that it
> be shipped with ocaml.

For me it is better also. But I cannot work under a system whose
director considers my work as a "waste of time". Sorry. Or explain
him to stop telling that!

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[brogoff]

On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Chris Hecker wrote:
> It's obviously clear from the list archives that people think campl4 is a 
> very good thing.  It's a great and useful tool.  It makes the ocaml system 
> more powerful.  It's a win.  From a user's perspective, it is by far better 
> if it is included in the main distribution/installation so my programs can 
> use it and be portable to other people's installations.

I agree with everything you write above. Well said!

However, if separating CamlP4 from OCaml (the way it used to be) ends the 
problem then I am for it. 

> It would be great if the drama associated with it could just go away...as 
> we say here in the states, "Can't we all just get along?"

Also relevant perhaps, was something we said a long time ago in the States which 
began "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people 
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."
(Please, no references to hanging together or hanging separately! ;-)

Of course, I'd prefer that it wasn't so, but I really want OCaml to be 
successful and if the status quo is not workable then let's return to the way it 
was and get back to hacking. 

-- Brian


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 04:45:22PM -0400, Oleg wrote:

> I'm still not sure I understand (BTW I did not know Camlp4 was being 
> integrated into O'Caml itself) 

Yes: it was integrated in version 3.04, last year (by me). And now,
because of this conflict, I claim that Camlp4 return to its previous
state: separately developped. But the direction refuses.

> You are saying that "[integrating Camlp4 into O'Caml] was a good
> compromise" [...]

No: "separating" is a good compromise, not "integrating".

> Pardon my ignorance, but is the offer to work on Camlp4 as part of
> O'Caml some sort of demotion for you at INRIA, or is the whole
> conflict merely about the location of Camlp4 in the CVS tree?

When people cannot get on together, the solution is to separate
them, in order that they can go on working.

I have been feeling better work in a separate version of Camlp4, and I
have had more ideas in this liberty; in that position, I feel better
in front of those who say that it is a "waste of time". I don't give a
damm of what they say and I use my energy developping, debugging and
improving it.

The problem, the serious problem, is that the direction refuses that.
Because of you, users, of course, and I understand that. But try to
explain that to my imagination: sorry, inside a constraint to work
inside a system who considers my work as a waste of time, I am blocked,
I cannot have ideas. Research is a creative action, I am not a robot.
I am an human being and I cannot work in any conditions.

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 02:01:57PM -0700, brogoff@speakeasy.net wrote:

> Of course, I'd prefer that it wasn't so, but I really want OCaml to
> be successful and if the status quo is not workable then let's
> return to the way it was and get back to hacking.

Don't worry: this problem does not stop me hacking on Camlp4! I have
been working on OCaml with Scheme syntax, for Bruno Verlyck (the
author of "Cash"), who experiments it.

I am developping it in the separated version of Camlp4, of course
(accessible under CVS).

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Florian Douetteau]

On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:

> The problem, the serious problem, is that the direction refuses that.
> Because of you, users, of course, and I understand that. But try to
> explain that to my imagination: sorry, inside a constraint to work
> inside a system who considers my work as a waste of time, I am blocked,
> I cannot have ideas. Research is a creative action, I am not a robot.
> I am an human being and I cannot work in any conditions.

The people who say that your work is "a waste of time" may indeed mean
that it's cool, in their own words. The whole research activity is a
"waste of time", to some extent :)

"waste of time": something that one does for fun and not for money, in any
way.

About camlp4, i would like a basic version of camlp4
integrated with the basic distribution, and a camlp4-ext
package available to power users, with extensions, an
alternative syntax etc ..


--
Florian,
trolling mood

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Markus Mottl]

On Sun, 06 Oct 2002, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 03:29:59PM -0400, Oleg wrote:
> It would be good, indeed, that Camlp4 be separated from OCaml, but
> the direction of the OCaml team refuses that energically. However
> it was a good compromise.

I want to make my contribution to this flamewar short:

  * Camlp4 is useful.

  * Camlp4 should be part of the main distribution, because a not
    insignificant number of people uses it, be it for streams or
    different syntax.

  * Development and stable versions are absolutely common in software
    development. I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be
    corresponding branches in the CVS, which keeps good track of the
    differences. No need to separate Camlp4 from the rest of the project:
    just agree on release dates and that's it.

  * Concerning the point that somebody says "X is a waste of time". My
    PhD-supervisor thinks that OCaml is a waste of time. So what? I
    don't like Prolog...

Otherwise, please resolve personal issues over a beer in a bar or in a
fight outside, whichever you prefer. As long as all of you stay healthy
for further development, OCaml-users will be happy... ;-)

Regards,
Markus Mottl

-- 
Markus Mottl                                             markus@oefai.at
Austrian Research Institute
for Artificial Intelligence                  http://www.oefai.at/~markus
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 02:43:44PM -0700, Michael Vanier wrote:

> Can't you just fork your own version and call it camlp5 or something? ;-)
> That's the usual way of dealing with conflicts of this sort in the open
> source/free software world.

It is what I do. I use the old CVS directory used for Camlp4 before it
was in OCaml at http://camlcvs.inria.fr/

All the changes I do are in the directory camlp4, and not the
directory ocaml/camlp4.

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 11:46:02PM +0200, Florian Douetteau wrote:

> The people who say that your work is "a waste of time" may indeed mean
> that it's cool, in their own words. The whole research activity is a
> "waste of time", to some extent :)

:-)
But I suppose that he does not say that as a positive thing.
Well, it is a way of seeing of the problem, I am going to
think of it...

> About camlp4, i would like a basic version of camlp4
> integrated with the basic distribution, and a camlp4-ext
> package available to power users, with extensions, an
> alternative syntax etc ..

With users contributions, you mean?

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Sven LUTHER]

On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 08:55:26PM +0200, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> I am very sorry to announce here that the attitude of the direction of
> the caml team is seriously comprimizing the future of Camlp4. I would
> like you to send messages to stop that. Thank you if you can help.

Daniel, the one problem i have with separating camlp4 from ocaml, is
that, if i remember well, the standalone camlp4 needed access to the
ocaml sources to build. As a debian maintainer of ocaml package if find
this to be very messy, and was hapy when it was solved by including
camlp4 in ocaml.

If we separate again, what will be the situation on this same topic ?
will you again depend on the ocaml source ? Is there not a cleaner
solution for this ?

And also i am curious, what is so difficult with continuing to release
camlp4 as part of ocaml, but have a separate CVS tree for developpment,
that you sync with ocaml from time to time (and probably before each new
release), in the same way as DRI for example maintains a separate
development tree from XFree86 ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 09:21:53AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:

> Daniel, the one problem i have with separating camlp4 from ocaml, is
> that, if i remember well, the standalone camlp4 needed access to the
> ocaml sources to build.

No: Camlp4 is really an independant program. Yes it uses some files of
ocaml, but they are duplicated in the Camlp4 sources (directory
ocaml_stuff).

Between parentheses, these copied sources are the OCaml syntax tree,
which are not installed in the OCaml library. I had asked that they
are installed, like are installed some ".h" files, but it has been
refused. However, it would be useful, if people want to create another
preprocessor or use the OCaml syntax tree.

> If we separate again, what will be the situation on this same topic ?
> will you again depend on the ocaml source ? Is there not a cleaner
> solution for this ?

Programs often depend on versions of a compiler, for example with
the associated library.

> And also i am curious, what is so difficult with continuing to release
> camlp4 as part of ocaml, but have a separate CVS tree for developpment,
> that you sync with ocaml from time to time (and probably before each new
> release), in the same way as DRI for example maintains a separate
> development tree from XFree86 ?

I don't know the story of DRI and XFree86. The point is that I refuse
to sync: I consider that the ocaml team is not ready for the
industrialization level, although it pretends, because, at this level,
some "liberty of expression" should be more controlled. It is abnormal
that some member of the team considers that he is free to tell the
industrial contacts that the work of another member is "not serious".

Can you imagine what happens if the second of Microsoft tells to a
customer that Windows is "not serious"? The guy would be dismissed.

I shall return working inside the ocaml directory, if and only if the
ocaml team behave as professionnals.

Another example: I was very shocked, some time ago, that the icon of
Caml Light was "Joe Camel". Very funny, for students, but serious at
industialization level. When I said that, they laughed at me,
telling that I have no sense of humour.

Sorry, 6 millions deaths by cancer of lung EACH YEAR in the world does
not make me laugh. And the free ad of a seller of tobacco is serious
and important. I don't want to be a party to that. Industrials don't
have a "sense of humour", I am sorry. I am absolutely sure that we
have lost customers because of that. Even the name "Caml Light" is
absolutely suspect: students in France are learning it. And some of
them go here to make a thesis, or an a training course and bring their
packets of Camel, that they smoke, and smile at that. Perhaps they
think that we accept them better if they smoke Camels?

Therefore, the ocaml team is not professionnal, I am sorry.

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 01:54:50AM +0200, Markus Mottl wrote:

>   * Concerning the point that somebody says "X is a waste of time". My
>     PhD-supervisor thinks that OCaml is a waste of time. So what? I
>     don't like Prolog...

Would you be happy if you PhD-supervisor also said that *your work of
your PhD* is a waste of time?

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Sven LUTHER]

On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 10:52:38AM +0200, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 09:21:53AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> 
> > Daniel, the one problem i have with separating camlp4 from ocaml, is
> > that, if i remember well, the standalone camlp4 needed access to the
> > ocaml sources to build.
> 
> No: Camlp4 is really an independant program. Yes it uses some files of
> ocaml, but they are duplicated in the Camlp4 sources (directory
> ocaml_stuff).

Ok, but it seems to me that this was not so previously (i was requested
for a ocaml-source package at that time by the camlp4 maintainer, i
think).

> Between parentheses, these copied sources are the OCaml syntax tree,
> which are not installed in the OCaml library. I had asked that they
> are installed, like are installed some ".h" files, but it has been
> refused. However, it would be useful, if people want to create another
> preprocessor or use the OCaml syntax tree.

If it ever becomes necessary to have them, i would much prefer that you
tell me which files so i can install them or something. Sure i have a
copy of the ocaml sources as the ocaml-source package, but it is an ugly
solution.

> > If we separate again, what will be the situation on this same topic ?
> > will you again depend on the ocaml source ? Is there not a cleaner
> > solution for this ?
> 
> Programs often depend on versions of a compiler, for example with
> the associated library.

Well, yes, ok, that is no problem, the problem is if you need the
_sources_ of the compiler to build the program, as opposed to having the
correct version of the compiler available. And the associated libraries
are already compiled, not in source form.

This is what i was refering to when i was speaking of finding a cleaner
solution than depending on the sources.

> > And also i am curious, what is so difficult with continuing to release
> > camlp4 as part of ocaml, but have a separate CVS tree for developpment,
> > that you sync with ocaml from time to time (and probably before each new
> > release), in the same way as DRI for example maintains a separate
> > development tree from XFree86 ?
> 
> I don't know the story of DRI and XFree86. The point is that I refuse
> to sync: I consider that the ocaml team is not ready for the

Why ?

> industrialization level, although it pretends, because, at this level,
> some "liberty of expression" should be more controlled. It is abnormal
> that some member of the team considers that he is free to tell the
> industrial contacts that the work of another member is "not serious".

I don't see how the internal problems of the ocaml team has to do with
the seriousness or the readiness for industrial purpose ? As long as you
don't export it to the outside that is.

> Can you imagine what happens if the second of Microsoft tells to a
> customer that Windows is "not serious"? The guy would be dismissed.

Sure, but he would have been right, would he not ?

> I shall return working inside the ocaml directory, if and only if the
> ocaml team behave as professionnals.

...

> Another example: I was very shocked, some time ago, that the icon of
> Caml Light was "Joe Camel". Very funny, for students, but serious at
> industialization level. When I said that, they laughed at me,
> telling that I have no sense of humour.

Beside the fact that Camel could have sued you for unlicensed use of the
icon, and that it may well be contrary to the french laws about
publicity for cigarets, i don't think that the icon used for ocaml has
bought anyone to smoke.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 01:25:59PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:

> Well, yes, ok, that is no problem, the problem is if you need the
> _sources_ of the compiler to build the program, as opposed to having the
> correct version of the compiler available.

You *don't need* the sources of OCaml to compile Camlp4. You just need
that OCaml (binary and library) is installed, that's all.

> I don't see how the internal problems of the ocaml team has to do with
> the seriousness or the readiness for industrial purpose ? As long as you
> don't export it to the outside that is.

The director of the project argues me that it is not possible to
separate Camlp4 from OCaml because "we have industrial contacts".

> > Can you imagine what happens if the second of Microsoft tells to a
> > customer that Windows is "not serious"? The guy would be dismissed.
> 
> Sure, but he would have been right, would he not ?

Yes. But right or not, it is not the point. In the point of view of
having users, or customers, destroying the work of his colleagues is a
dangerous thing, which has consequences. Bad for sells, or bad for
convincing the decidors, who are sometime not scientifics.

> Beside the fact that Camel could have sued you for unlicensed use of
> the icon [...]

You joke? They would be happy, for sure, that scientifics encourage
them and give them free ad!

> and that it may well be contrary to the french laws about publicity
> for cigarets, i don't think that the icon used for ocaml has bought
> anyone to smoke.

Ah, this is what they say in "Formule 1". I am convinced of the contrary.

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Sven LUTHER]

On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 01:30:25PM +0200, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 01:25:59PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> 
> > Well, yes, ok, that is no problem, the problem is if you need the
> > _sources_ of the compiler to build the program, as opposed to having the
> > correct version of the compiler available.
> 
> You *don't need* the sources of OCaml to compile Camlp4. You just need
> that OCaml (binary and library) is installed, that's all.

Ok, like said, i have no problem with that.

> > I don't see how the internal problems of the ocaml team has to do with
> > the seriousness or the readiness for industrial purpose ? As long as you
> > don't export it to the outside that is.
> 
> The director of the project argues me that it is not possible to
> separate Camlp4 from OCaml because "we have industrial contacts".

Well, i am no industrial contract, but i would also very much prefer to
keep it together (for ease at packaging at least).

> > > Can you imagine what happens if the second of Microsoft tells to a
> > > customer that Windows is "not serious"? The guy would be dismissed.
> > 
> > Sure, but he would have been right, would he not ?
> 
> Yes. But right or not, it is not the point. In the point of view of
> having users, or customers, destroying the work of his colleagues is a
> dangerous thing, which has consequences. Bad for sells, or bad for
> convincing the decidors, who are sometime not scientifics.

I should have added a smiley.

> > Beside the fact that Camel could have sued you for unlicensed use of
> > the icon [...]
> 
> You joke? They would be happy, for sure, that scientifics encourage
> them and give them free ad!

Maybe, but it still is unlicensed use of trademarked material, or
something such.

> > and that it may well be contrary to the french laws about publicity
> > for cigarets, i don't think that the icon used for ocaml has bought
> > anyone to smoke.
> 
> Ah, this is what they say in "Formule 1". I am convinced of the contrary.

Huh ???

But i think we are going too much of topic here, please reply in private
mail if needed.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Alessandro Baretta]

Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:

> Another example: I was very shocked, some time ago, that the icon of
> Caml Light was "Joe Camel". Very funny, for students, but serious at
> industialization level. When I said that, they laughed at me,
> telling that I have no sense of humour.
> 
> Sorry, 6 millions deaths by cancer of lung EACH YEAR in the world does
> not make me laugh. And the free ad of a seller of tobacco is serious
> and important. I don't want to be a party to that. Industrials don't
> have a "sense of humour", I am sorry. I am absolutely sure that we
> have lost customers because of that. Even the name "Caml Light" is
> absolutely suspect: students in France are learning it. And some of
> them go here to make a thesis, or an a training course and bring their
> packets of Camel, that they smoke, and smile at that. Perhaps they
> think that we accept them better if they smoke Camels?
> 
> Therefore, the ocaml team is not professionnal, I am sorry.

I am an anti-smoke radical, and I must state this before I 
continue. "Joe Camel" c'est sympa! C'est tout! I refuse to 
delete from my vocabulary all words and acronyms which in 
specific contexts mean something I abhor. For example, I do 
not advocate nuking Marlborough, Massachusetts, because of 
the famous cigarettes.

This project is about catergorical abstract "machins", not 
about cigarettes.

Sorry for mixing French and English, but some words like 
"sympa" and "machin" cannot be translated.

Alex

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Alessandro Baretta]

Joshua D. Guttman wrote:
> Alessandro Baretta <alex@baretta.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>   For example, I do not advocate nuking Marlborough,
>>  Massachusetts, because of the famous cigarettes.
> 
> 
> Yes, you probably know this already, but the cigarettes have nothing
> to do with Marlborough Massachusetts, and have cultivated a "wild
> west" image (not a New England tech center image) for many years, and
> of course they're not spelt the same.
> 
> Cheers --
> 
>         Joshua 

For anti-smoke taliban, this is not a good enough reason not 
to nuke a city... ;)

Alex

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Kontra, Gergely]

>I want to make my contribution to this flamewar short:
>
>  * Camlp4 is useful.

>Otherwise, please resolve personal issues over a beer in a bar or in a
>fight outside, whichever you prefer. As long as all of you stay healthy
>for further development, OCaml-users will be happy... ;-)

I agree, camlp4 IS useful. (Exploring the alternative syntax)
I just afraid of developing in ocaml, if there exists two version of the
syntax. Sorry to say, but I cannot say much clever about this issue, but
I think the main goal is to have ONE version of syntax, which is clean.
But I know many people used to the old syntax, so I really
don't know how to handle it. As a newbie to ocaml, I found, that the
alternative syntax helps us to write correct code (but to tell the truth
I don't agree with some of the decisions... Eg. it uses value, not val,
explaining ocaml syntax doesn't have abbreviated keywords. But it does
have! The fun keyword, which is not called function. Anyway, this is not
a bad thing, since SML use fun also, so I think one can have val, which
is exactly the same in SML.
Another thing, that
bothers me is the do { } syntax. It seems a bit silly mixture of some
shell and C syntax, I think either do ... done or { ... } would be a
good choice (or support both, this way bash and C programmers will be
happy ;))
Ok, I know, you'll say: "Then why don't you write your own syntax?"

Ooops, so I'd like to know what is the tendecy: will the alternative
syntax be a new standard, or users should use the old syntax, and the
alternative syntax supporting is their problem?

ps: If this was discussed, please tell me where can I read it.

Gergo

+-[Kontra, Gergely @ Budapest University of Technology and Economics]-+
|         Email: kgergely@mcl.hu,  kgergely@turul.eet.bme.hu          |
|  URL:   turul.eet.bme.hu/~kgergely    Mobile: (+36 20) 356 9656     |
+-------"Olyan langesz vagyok, hogy poroltoval kellene jarnom!"-------+
.
Magyar php mirror es magyar php dokumentacio: http://hu.php.net

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Alessandro Baretta]

Kontra, Gergely wrote:
>>I want to make my contribution to this flamewar short:
>>
>> * Camlp4 is useful.
> 
> 
>>Otherwise, please resolve personal issues over a beer in a bar or in a
>>fight outside, whichever you prefer. As long as all of you stay healthy
>>for further development, OCaml-users will be happy... ;-)
> 
> 
> I agree, camlp4 IS useful. (Exploring the alternative syntax)
> I just afraid of developing in ocaml, if there exists two version of the
> syntax. ...
> 
> ps: If this was discussed, please tell me where can I read it.
> 
> Gergo

This was discussed on the mailing list. You can find 
previous threads in the archives. The main idea is that 
there is no need for a "standard" syntax, so long as CamlP4 
can always convert any nonstandard source code in the 
standard "vanilla" syntax.

Alex

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 01:34:39PM +0200, Kontra, Gergely wrote:

> I agree, camlp4 IS useful. (Exploring the alternative syntax)
> I just afraid of developing in ocaml, if there exists two version of the
> syntax.

No: there is no two versions of the syntax, just one. OCaml has its
syntax, and it is the official one.

Let us compare with X window and the window managers. The X server
does not give by default any window manager: when you start X, you
just have a background and a mouse, and you can move it, that's all.
X can receive orders to create windows, move them, but by default,
it does nothing.

This is like the core of OCaml: the semantics. Now, it is impossible
to have a semantics without syntax. The same way, it is impossible to
have a system of windows without window manager. Hence, there is a
syntax, a given syntax. It could be compared with, say, the window
manager KDE.

Now, you man consider that KDE has many defaults. You may be
insterested in playing with "window managers", i.e. "syntax
tools". This is the gool of Camlp4.

OCaml does not need Camlp4, and it seems that the tendancy of the
Cristal team does not include experiments and developments about
syntax.

  ----

But Camlp4 can be useful even if you want to stay inside the official
syntax: you can do your small syntax extensions, you can use
quotations, you can use extensible grammars, all of that in the
official syntax. BTW, the manual and tutorial of Camlp4 gives its
examples in the official syntax.

The revised syntax, and, the Scheme syntax are just games with Camlp4.
Games or... research! We want to proove that many things can be done
with syntax. Perhaps, latter, a good consensus can happen with one of
the syntax Camlp4 developped. For the moment, it is not the case: the
OCaml team prefers keeping its syntax, despite its drawbacks that the
Revised syntax tries to fix.

I add that having its own syntx is not a problem of communication:
Camlp4 provides a pretty printer in the official syntax. You can
therefore understand the programs of the other people. And the
Revised syntax is close to the official syntax: you can read it
directly.

> Another thing, that bothers me is the do { } syntax. It seems a bit
> silly mixture of some shell and C syntax, I think either do ... done
> or { ... } would be a good choice (or support both, this way bash
> and C programmers will be happy ;))

Ha, if you are interested in the "Revised syntax", we can talk about
its choices, indeed. For the moment, I did not found people really
interested in making a "team" about a "New Revised syntax". The main
reason is that people are not shocked by the same things! We could
not know what are the points we want to talk about.

> Ooops, so I'd like to know what is the tendecy: will the alternative
> syntax be a new standard, or users should use the old syntax, and the
> alternative syntax supporting is their problem?

IMHO, the OCaml team is very very far from adopting a new syntax. But
using alternative syntaxes cannot be considered as a "problem" thanks
to the flexibility of Camlp4: I wrote GeneWeb entirely in Revised
syntax (45000 lines of code) and I am sure that it prevents nobody
to make changes in it.

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

[Caml-list] Syntax

[brogoff]

On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Kontra, Gergely wrote:
> Another thing, that
> bothers me is the do { } syntax. It seems a bit silly mixture of some
> shell and C syntax, I think either do ... done or { ... } would be a
> good choice 

Actually, more like Haskell to me. 

Originally, the syntax was 

do e1; e2; e3; return e4

and 

while e1 do e2; e3; e4 done 
for v = e1 to e2 do e3; e4 done

As noted in the tutorial, not using "done" would save a keyword. So that would 
argue for using {} or some other non-alphanum bracketing tokens, and saving "do" 
as well. 

A counterargument is that the keyword may make it more readable, as the 
imperative sections of the code stand out more, and that's probably what you 
want in an ML family language, which while, imperative, supports a functional 
programming style well. 

I think the "do {}" is fine, and better than both the OCaml syntax and the 
previous Revised one. I could be convinced that {} or the like is better, 
but only by a little if at all. 

> Ok, I know, you'll say: "Then why don't you write your own syntax?"

No, I perfectly understand that there are people who aren't keen on OCaml 
syntax but would still prefer to be in a community of programmers using the 
same syntax. And, since Revised has such a relatively small community, 
that you may feel that you may influence it's development to be more to your 
liking. 

Feel free, argue for your choices. 

-- Brian


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Oleg]

On Friday 11 October 2002 09:15 am, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> IMHO, the OCaml team is very very far from adopting a new syntax.

Perhaps we could take a survey regarding the syntax preferences to help paint 
a larger picture. I personally find using the default syntax rather 
error-prone. 

Cheers
Oleg
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners

Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:45:00PM -0400, Oleg wrote:

> Perhaps we could take a survey regarding the syntax preferences to
> help paint a larger picture. I personally find using the default
> syntax rather error-prone.

Me too, and, actually, the OCaml team also.

But we don't agree with each other on what a good syntax should be,
and even not which small changes could be done. We had many arguments
some years ago about that, we did not improve anything (except, maybe,
the uppercase constructors), all discussions ended with "this is just
syntax" (insinuation: what is important is semantics).

I gave up, but if you want to speak about that, and propose things,
please do.

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners