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=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_FAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993DABB84 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:50:54 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmACAJQGb0lQRFuwgWdsb2JhbACUAAEBFiK7SYVu X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.37,271,1231110000"; d="scan'208";a="21545493" Received: from furbychan.cocan.org ([80.68.91.176]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 15 Jan 2009 18:50:46 +0100 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LNWMf-00013m-CW; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:50:45 +0000 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:50:45 +0000 To: Dario Teixeira Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr, Dawid Toton Subject: Re: [Caml-list] What is a future of ocaml? Message-ID: <20090115175045.GB3435@annexia.org> References: <496DEC48.7000906@wp.pl> <861603.52177.qm@web111514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <861603.52177.qm@web111514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Richard Jones X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 compiler:01 compiler:01 o'reilly:01 2009:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 inria:06 wed:06 red:92 quite:08 release:09 core:09 perl:09 On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 09:28:59AM -0800, Dario Teixeira wrote: > Speaking of which, there's something that's been on my mind for quite > some time: what's the holdup preventing INRIA from having more manpower > dedicated to Ocaml? Honestly I don't think we need to fixate on the core compiler. If the compiler had a new release once a year it really wouldn't matter. Perl 5.x releases new versions less often than once a year, and that wasn't what killed Perl take-up (it was the Osborne Effect around Perl 6 which did that, combined with O'Reilly dropping financial support). What's needed is activity in all the other areas around the compiler - I listed a few in my other response. Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat