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 mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFC2BBAF for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:54:53 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlcDACZ7X0zUGyoFkWdsb2JhbACTUIx0FQEBAQEJCwoHEQMfwR+FOgSET4dK X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,341,1278280800"; d="scan'208";a="67417668" Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.5]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2010 12:54:52 +0200 Received: from apc.happyleptic.org (unknown [82.67.194.89]) by smtp5-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102C7D48065 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:54:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ccellier.rd.securactive.lan (extranet.securactive.org [82.234.213.170]) by apc.happyleptic.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42EBC3355B for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:59:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from rixed by ccellier.rd.securactive.lan with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OiQ0C-0001vk-JP for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:54:44 +0200 Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:54:44 +0200 From: Cedric Cellier To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] interest in a much simpler, but modern, Caml? Message-ID: <20100809105444.GA24481@securactive.net> Mail-Followup-To: Cedric Cellier , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 runtime:01 runtime:01 caml-list:01 caml:02 simpler:05 profitable:94 teaching:08 real:10 real:10 aug:10 environments:10 bit:11 cedric:11 might:12 -[ Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 04:37:36PM +1000, ivan chollet ]---- > The existing ocaml runtime is > amazing but it's definitely not very community friendly and is in my opinion > a bit hard to understand given the scarcity of design documents. A real > community project with real documentation might be interesting for teaching > purposes but also in production environments. > If enough people are interested, I'll be happy to contribute or to start > such a project. Don't you think it would be a more profitable work to document the existing runtime instead ?