From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E362BC88 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2005 08:14:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from services.cse.ucsc.edu (services.cse.ucsc.edu [128.114.48.10]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j157EVG2012402 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2005 08:14:32 +0100 Received: from localhost (kresge-37-234.resnet.ucsc.edu [169.233.37.234]) (authenticated bits=0) by services.cse.ucsc.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j157ESe3007672 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 4 Feb 2005 23:14:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 23:13:08 -0800 From: Kenneth Knowles To: Ernesto Posse Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Estimating the size of the ocaml community Message-ID: <20050205071308.GA24083@tallman.ucsc.edu> References: <36663.132.206.3.150.1107545768.squirrel@mail.cs.mcgill.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <36663.132.206.3.150.1107545768.squirrel@mail.cs.mcgill.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 42047257.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 wrote:01 freezes:01 sml:01 o'caml:01 kenneth:98 knowles:98 ernesto:03 languages:03 depends:04 size:95 fri:05 i'd:05 mainstream:06 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 02:36:08PM -0500, Ernesto Posse wrote: > But language features such as the type system, are by no means the only > determinant of a language's popularity. There are a few key other > issues, such as: The mainstream languages are that way for two reasons: (1) They filled a niche at a key moment. This happens about once a decade, and by no means selects the "best" language. (2) They are entrenched (by #1). When this happens to your language it freezes and you have to look elsewhere for the cutting edge. So it all depends on your goals. Personally, I would prefer for something like SML to become mainstream, because it is already a relic. I'd like to see O'Caml continue as it is - an enormous advantage for those small companies and individuals who are nimble and adventurous enough to use it, and a reasonably researchful language. - Kenn