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 VAA18814; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:10:25 +0100 (MET) 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 VAA18683 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:10:24 +0100 (MET) Received: from biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (BISCAYNE-ONE-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.80]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2IKAMHd012020 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:10:23 +0100 Received: from melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.86]) by biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i2IKAMaS004063 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:10:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from nerd-xing.mit.edu (NERD-XING.MIT.EDU [18.7.16.74]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as jfc@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id i2IKAKTC004319 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:10:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jfc@localhost) by nerd-xing.mit.edu (8.12.9) id i2IKAK1a008157; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:10:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200403182010.i2IKAK1a008157@nerd-xing.mit.edu> To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:41:18 +0100." <20040318184118.GC702@first.in-berlin.de> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:10:20 -0500 From: John Carr X-Miltered: at concorde by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml's:01 caml-list:01 run-time:01 jfc:01 bug:01 bug:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 complexity:02 unix:02 library:03 library:03 suppose:03 shadow:03 cathedral:95 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 183 > > 1. Nobody else knows the language. > > 2. It doesn't run on our platform. > > 3. It will break and we can't get support. > > Point 1 => same problem as with Linux about ten years ago > > Point 2 => really not running on that platform? > > Point 3 => The INRIA-cathedral will help to prevent this problem > in the sense of "we do not allow any hacker to make > changes in the core language" Suppose we find a bug in ocaml that impacts our product. Whose job is it to fix the bug? Neither "a network of hackers" nor "some academic researchers in France, if they have the time" is an acceptable answer. We pay a company to provide us with an embedded Linux environment including cross-compilation tools. While in reality ocaml will be more reliable than g++ due to the vast difference in complexity, that doesn't overcome the fear. Consider points 2 and 3 as axioms. They were dictated to me by management and were not subject to debate. As long as there is a shadow of a doubt about support, ocaml won't be used where I work. The library system is troublesome -- non-core libraries need other libraries, which need other libraries, and so on -- but in this case it didn't make a difference. ------------------- 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