From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80267BC40 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:48:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ptb-relay01.plus.net (ptb-relay01.plus.net [212.159.14.212]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j78ImX4I025638 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:48:34 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=chetara) by ptb-relay01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1E2Cfo-00036W-KD for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:48:32 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml for Industry Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 19:35:01 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <200508011826.52882.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <200508081820.09595.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <1123523898.6848.107.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1123523898.6848.107.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508081935.01424.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 42F7A901.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 frog:98 wrote:01 imho:01 imho:01 caml:02 objective:02 languages:03 languages:03 converted:04 buy:92 theory:07 silly:07 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Monday 08 August 2005 18:58, skaller wrote: > > Rather than writing a whole report (seeing as there's no interest in it), > > That is a silly conclusion IMHO. Did you really expect existing > Ocaml experts to buy a report on use of Ocaml in industry targetted > at MANAGERS?? My theory was that programmers who appreciate better languages might want some evidence that they can present to their managers in order to help justify the use of non-mainstream languages. I was curious to see if anyone here was in such a position. I get the impression that most people here (like me) write OCaml code without benefit of a manager. ;-) > You're preaching to the converted here: your report is targeted > at people who are NOT subscribed to this list :) > > > Yes, that is exactly what we are finding. There is also a market for > > OCaml-generated C code, IMHO. > > And C++ .. which is what Felix does .. :) Yes, and C++. :-) -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. Objective CAML for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists