Re: [Caml-list] Some comments on recent discussions

[oliver <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>]

Hey! :-)


On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 01:18:35AM +0100, Paolo Donadeo wrote:
> I just want to add some erratic thoughts summoned by the recent
> <strike>flame</strike>... discussion about "the state of the OCaml
> union". For this reason I'm not pretending to be coherent or to have
> an answer to each and every problem, I'm not John Wayne and I'll never
> be.
[...]

Did you ever tried it? ;-)


> 
> OCaml community is basically composed by computer professionals that
> have very few time to spend on the geek social networks (reddit,
> stackoverflow, ...) to write how this language is beautiful, how it is
> so "pure" (or "impure"), and so on. I write software in OCaml, and
> this software is working right now in a production environment.
> Nothing even comparable with Jane St. or LexiFy or Mylife, but I have
> my customers and if something stops working, they complain A LOT ;-)
[...]

You happy guy...
...so i think you do your own software and sell it.
if freelancing for other companies, then most often (nearly always)
they decide the language to use.



[...]
> What I like in OCaml is that it's really stable, fast and in the last
> years many key tools have been added to the tool chain. As an
> engineer, I think that ocamlbuild + oasis (only an example) are MORE
> valuable than first class modules and GADTs. Which, in turn, are not
> "minor improvements" at all, and I don't see this supposed immobility
> of the language.
[...]

FULL ACK!


> 
> The standard library problem: the core library is small, ugly, useless
> and more. The standard library provided by INRIA can't even send
> email, make a POST, or talk with a web service. Ok, but what exactly
> can you do with the C, or C++ standard library? I *like* the elegant
> simplicity of the standard library and, when something is missing I
> can: 1) write my own solution or 2) search for library by other OCaml
> developers.
[...]

FULL ACK!





> What's wrong with Google searching for a good library?

The wrong thing?
Google is not using Ocaml for anything.
So it must be avoided ;-)



> Why
> many people seems to advocate a unique library "to rule them all"?


Because of Frank Zappa: One Size Fits All




> And
> why this huge library should enter in the standard distribution? Why
> many people complain about the poor visibility of the community, but
> refuses to use ocamlcore.org (thanks Sylvain forever!)


Easy (easier) installation and linking would maybe help a lot
that people don't wait for the big bloaty lib.

Some people are good admins, others are good programmers,
and only few people do like both....

But... hmhhh... there are a lot of tools now that can be used
to compaile/link or install Ocaml and related libraries.


This does mean:
  1) the tools provcded with OCaml maybe are not as good as most people want them
  2) there are already a lot of people contributing and providing tools for that problem


1) could be a point of criticism,
2) shows that the "missing effort in the community" is not true

If community effort would solve all problems, then 2) would
kill 1)

It seems not to be the case.

So 2) can't solve 1).

It either needs better installation tools in the official distribution,
or adapting one of those external tools, or at least recommending one of them
as "recommended by the core team".


Other options might also be possible.

Ideas someone?



> only because
> GitHub has a nicer web2.0 interface?

Even GitHub needs some more colors... ;-)



> Yes, I like GitHub, but I think
> we *ALL* should host our projects, at least the main web pages on
> OCamlCore, to minimize the scatter.

Ah, it needs a tool, named "camlscatter", which not only pushes the OCaml
projects to many servers, but of course also is written in OCaml (just be be
consequent).
(Should it be part of the official distribution?)


;-)



> 
> There are many specialized library for almost everything in OCaml, and
> 2/3 big "standard libraries" (Batteries, Core, ExtLib?). Why can't we
> simply choose one of these excellent libraries? I like
> <ads>Batteries</ads> but there is NOTHING wrong with Core, and I hope
> both of them will remain OUT of the standard distribution forever.
> Why? Because the standard library is small and virtually bug-free or,
> better said, it tends to be so, because it's *rare* that a new feature
> is added, and this is *good*.
[...]

FULL ACK!

Bloat is contrary to modularity.

Pick what you need, and build what you want.


(The customers might have different wishes, looking for monoliths (?!), but
 isn't this a programmers discussion?)


[...]
> I don't say there are no problems, and everything is fine. But if I
> have do point at a problem, especially for newcomers, I would say that
> we need a book, an up to date book, written in good English and
> published by O'Relly.
[...]

ACK.

But because the language is rapidly evolving (*) - despite any other
comments on that - I think it's hard to have a book that is
up to date.

But O'Reilly would not have a problem to make new editions from time to time...
...if there are people who would write the book and update it soon.


> 
> But this is a very hard issue to be solved, no GitHub (R) (TM) in help here ;-)

A book could be also done as a collaberative approach.

But documentation is all to often contrary to programming,
at least in "the masses", and "the masses" is what is looked for,
when it is asked for "community efforts".



Ciao,
   Oliver

(*): Maybe people look for bloaty libraries, and call that "progress" of a "language".

     But the issue on first class modules for example...
     ...can this be ignored, when people talk about progress of a LANGUAGE?

     How many libraries (or how much OOP) would be needed as a workaround for this?

     That even in times of urging Ocaml programmers the core team decided to implement this
     feature (and planned others too) is a huge plus, that shows me, that in the Ocaml core
     team, thinking and elegance has priotrity over hype issues and bloat.