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 QAA19601; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:12:18 +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 QAA20862 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:12:17 +0100 (MET) Received: from mwinf0204.wanadoo.fr (smtp2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.29]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2JFCGHd017509 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:12:16 +0100 Received: from lambda (AStrasbourg-206-1-25-146.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.188.146]) by mwinf0204.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4CA03A00004A; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:12:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from luther by lambda with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1B4Lfm-0006rK-00; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:12:34 +0100 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:12:33 +0100 To: John Carr Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library) Message-ID: <20040319151233.GA26339@lambda> References: <20040319085156.GC14831@lambda> <200403191320.i2JDKbsv027763@nerd-xing.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200403191320.i2JDKbsv027763@nerd-xing.mit.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: Sven Luther 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 sven:01 luther:01 sven:01 luther:01 2004:99 bug:01 hypothetical:01 compiler:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 consortium:01 complexity:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 233 On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 08:20:37AM -0500, John Carr wrote: > > [In reply to management concerns about support for ocaml and > commercial product development:] > > > Well, nothing is stopping you from paying a programmer to fix the bug, > > and have it integrated in the upstream release. > > Telling management that we need to hire a compiler expert won't > persuade them to allow ocaml. > > I and other programmers tried to convince the company to use > ClearCase. It would have made some of our work a lot easier. > We were told no, because conventional wisdom says ClearCase > needs a dedicated system administrator and they didn't want to > hire another person. Real costs win over hypothetical savings. I don't understand. You wrote : 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. So, how is that different participating in the Ocaml Consortium, and thus making sure someone is paid to do the things you need ? Or is payng for one thing ok, but not for the other ? 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