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 NAA23283; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 13:00:15 +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 NAA23262 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 13:00:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hirsch.in-berlin.de (hirsch.in-berlin.de [192.109.42.6]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3OB0CYM014991 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 13:00:13 +0200 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de Received: from hirsch.in-berlin.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hirsch.in-berlin.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-3) with ESMTP id i3OB02ou001593; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 13:00:09 +0200 Received: from first.UUCP (uucp@localhost) by hirsch.in-berlin.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-3) with UUCP id i3OAo1d2000605; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:50:01 +0200 Received: by first.in-berlin.de via sendmail from stdin id (Debian Smail3.2.0.114) Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:10:49 +0200 (CEST) From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de (Oliver Bandel) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:10:49 +0200 To: caml-list@inria.fr Cc: John Goerzen , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [ANN] The Missing Library Message-ID: <20040424101049.GB1336@first.in-berlin.de> References: <20040423185148.GA4434@excelhustler.com> <20040423195206.GA27257@tallman.kefka.frap.net> <20040423202342.GA5962@excelhustler.com> <20040423223611.33ef1c08@haddock.max.fr> <20040423211003.GD6783@excelhustler.com> <20040423220815.GA1983@ours.starynkevitch.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <20040423220815.GA1983@ours.starynkevitch.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i 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; oliver:01 in-berlin:01 oliver:01 bandel:01 caml-list:01 2004:99 basile:01 3.01.:01 hashtbl:01 hashtbl:01 implemented:01 ocaml-team:01 ocaml-core:01 criticism:01 criticism:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 12:08:15AM +0200, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: [...]=20 > Regarding standard libraries, they should be kept small, because they > have to be learnt with the language. I believe that one of Common Lisp > problems (and perhaps source of failure) is the huge size of its > standard library, which is intimidating. Yes. This is one point: Without good books it seems unpossible to master Lisp because of its library size. But I don't agree that the OCaml-livbraries are too big. But I also accept the INRIA Cathedral in respect to the Core-OCaml. IMHO OCaml is an excellent language. And I'm not interested in incompatibel or bloated Libraries. So it's good that INRIA/OCaml-core-developers do not accept every thing that is talked about here. But some little enhancements in convenience could be made by some little more code in the libraries. For example: The first time I explored OCaml was with OCaml 3.01. I printed out the complete Reference manual and sometimes, when I had the time, I learned to program with it. Otherwise, when I had no time to do so, I paused with OCaml. And one day I used the Hashtbl-module, and recently had the need to go through all bindings and collect data (in a functional way). But: there was no Hashtbl.fold in the manual. Well the task would have been possible inmperatively with Hashtbl.iter, but I looked for a Hashtbl.fold. Well, and I was happxy, that at that time I asked for it, it already was implemented in the nbewer versions of OCaml. So IMHO there is progression on needed things in the standard lib, and it is well done. And when I ask for a Hashtbl.keys now, this may be accepted by the OCaml-team, or it may not be accepted. There is discussion and maybe they think: OK, good idea, or they trhink: Well, nice idea, but not for the standard lib. If the latter, I can use Hashtb.fold and programming it by myself, or may use other Libraries. But at least the discussion about new functions should be possible. BTW: Is there a list, where people can "throw in" their ideas/suggestions to OCaml? Or is all done by this mailing list? Wouldn't it be nice to have a separated list, or a webpage, where suggestions could be listed without further discussion, only that it is possible to gain an overview on what people want to have? I think it's goof that the OCaml-core developers will have the last word to say about it, but coming up with ideas should also be allowed. >=20 > Again, everything above is my own opinion, not those of INRIA (where I > happen to work currently) - I am not paid to talk for INRIA! But I > think that there is too much criticism w.r.t. to the work on Ocaml > done at INRIA. "C'est la ran=E7on du succ=E8s" (I leave this last sentence > in French). I don't want to see my mails as criticism to OCaml-team/INRIA. They have done a great work and I'm glad to have the possibility to program with OCaml. I only tell here some ideas and suggestions and what I want to have there, but this is not intended as a criticism to the OCaml/INRIA people! Ciao, Oliver ------------------- 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