From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143A3BB84 for ; Wed, 14 May 2008 15:45:08 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvYCAEOJKkhDWxLCbmdsb2JhbACBU5BGm1g X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,486,1204498800"; d="scan'208";a="26166908" Received: from ip67-91-18-194.z18-91-67.customer.algx.net (HELO server1.bertec.net) ([67.91.18.194]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 14 May 2008 15:45:05 +0200 Received: from kuba.bertec.net (kuba.bertec.net [192.168.2.16]) by server1.bertec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 917E0CDFB6 for ; Wed, 14 May 2008 09:45:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Kuba Ober To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 09:44:59 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <200805091909.57371.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <20080509223445.GB21613@annexia.org> In-Reply-To: <20080509223445.GB21613@annexia.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805140945.00489.ober.14@osu.edu> X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 0100,:01 overtaken:01 ocaml:01 predictable:01 compiler:01 gcc:01 gcc:01 compiler:01 distro:01 cheers:01 genius:98 degenerate:98 stellar:98 wrote:01 On Friday 09 May 2008, Richard Jones wrote: > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 07:09:57PM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote: > > F# has long since overtaken all other functional languages in terms of > > industrial uptake and I have not heard that complaint from anyone. Like > > OCaml, it follows simple rules and is predictable as a consequence. > > Figures to back up this extraordinary claim? (And I don't mean the > unverifiable figures of a certain Cambridge-based consultancy). > > These commercial enterprises better hope they don't need to modify the > F# compiler at all, and that MS keep releasing new versions and fixes > forever, because the terms of the F# license would prevent them from > fixing it themselves (unlike if they'd decided to go with an open > source solution). Availability of source code enables that, but is not a guarantee that a fix will be forthcoming or economical. Gcc codebase is all for us to see, yet it would require either a genius or lots of time for the ordinary ones among us to get to speed to work with it in general. I've attempted it 2-3 times, and I gave up after a while (just wrapping your mind around gas's borkedness can be revolting), even though I have no problem understanding most of the concepts involved; I maintain a proprietary, half-assed, just-good-enough implementation of a nonconforming Lisp which produces MCU (eZ8 and 12 bit pic) assembly on par with what I can write myself, mostly. But it's written in Lisp too, and while I could probably port it to C, I could never develop it in C (it'd degenerate in a way which makes gcc code look stellar). So even if you do have knowledge in the field, but no first-hand exposure to braindamage involved with writing (and maintaining) a compiler of any sort in a low level lanugage like C, you might as well have no access to the source code -- it won't help much beyond simple recompilation or minor patches needed to have the code compile on a newer revision of the host platform (say newer Linux distro). Cheers, Kuba