Re: [Caml-list] OCaml maintenance status / community fork (again)

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

On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:47:58AM +0000, ivan chollet wrote:
> It's nice to see this thread coming back to the original issue after having
> been hijacked.

"having been hijacked" sounds black-hearted.

"Different interpretation of the orig post" would match it better.


> You can notice that contributers to this thread have
> opinions but not many facts and arguments to support them.
> Contacting the OCaml maintainers privately is definitely not the way to let
> the development process happen in the open, but bad habits are hard to get
> rid of.

Doing things openly has advantages like "transparency" and seeing,
what and how it is done (lurking on activity).
But this also can be annoying to the developers.
Just when looking at those many discussions that popped up again and again here
during the years.



> I think we all understand that the core team is in an uncomfortable and
> conflicting situation and that the questions asked in this thread won't get
> an answer.


> In french this is called "avoir le cul entre deux chaises".
> Benedikt did not suggest at any point to set OCaml free from the original
> developers, he suggested to set it free from the INRIA.

1) Is this realistic?
2) And what would be the advantages of it?

1:
  Who would know INRIA, if there were no OCaml at INRIA?
  It even attracted some big companies, which also do bring in some mones:
    http://caml.inria.fr/consortium/

  So often universities are seen as ivory towers, which do not produce anything
  meaningful to zthe industry (and industry is thinking they do a good kob, using crap langauges).
  But OCaml could attract those companies...

  ...so OCaml, even it was from the ivory tower, it could attract idustry.

  It's not the masses, but some interesting companies are listed there.

  Of course I would be happy to have more projects using OCaml,
  but the reason why Ocaml is not used too often in industry, is, because there
  are not enough people who know OCaml.
  In one project I used OCaml for some tasks; but later it was decided only to
  use langauegs, that most people of the team knew. And I was the only OCaml
  programmer there. So it was decided to use C and Python. In other projects.
  OCaml was no option from the beginning.

  So, that OCaml is at INRIA is not the reason for OCaml not being widely used.
  And that it's driven by the ivory tower is rather an advantage, because what
  we like, is that it is not another crap language that every average programmer
  wants to use, driven by a hype.

  A while ago, when talking about a job opportunity, mentioning OCaml, the
  answer was, that C++ is preferred to C, because it offers OO.
  People just don't know it. And even some people who used it, but did not
  looked at it more closely, misunderstand some concepts.
  And learning Ocaml, in the beginning is painful, because the type system is
  always painful, until you get used to it.

  That's why OCaml is living in a niche.

  I doubt that it is, because the core team develops in secured intimacy,
  instead in the hectical world of this or that server of the community.



2)
  INRIA will not only be an institution which has constrictions for the team,
  but also possibilities. As an institution, it offers infrastructure which can
  be relied on. And maybe other people who might join.


If people want to have more influence on the Caml team it might make sense,
launching an open institution, which looks out for donations and then
enters the Caml Consortium.

Maybe such a group/institution could be an interface from Ocaml Core Team
to the public of unpatient OCaml users.


Ciao,
   Oliver