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,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89BD0BC69 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:04:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.182]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l7M64Xo2027890 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:04:33 +0200 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u52so134472pyb for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.153.8 with SMTP id a8mr13757wfe.1187762671772; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.80.4 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <28fa90930708212304v50d778e6u442f9f7cf8c1793e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:04:31 -0700 From: "Luca de Alfaro" To: "Inria Ocaml Mailing List" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] If OCaml were a car In-Reply-To: <20070819171953.GB20931@takhisis.invalid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_145999_7970168.1187762671727" References: <56864F61-40F3-4F03-9823-6D510AD5320B@epfl.ch> <200708191443.l7JEhEQ8007374@psi-phi.mit.edu> <20070819170704.GA10089@furbychan.cocan.org> <20070819171953.GB20931@takhisis.invalid> X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 46CBD1F1.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 necula:01 ocaml:01 syntax:01 non-trivial:01 zacchiroli:01 zack:01 0100,:01 syntax:01 sub-optimal:01 cheers:01 zacchiroli:01 zack:01 unibo:01 beginner's:01 ------=_Part_145999_7970168.1187762671727 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Backward compatibility is of the UTMOST importance. Developers tend to assume that people who wrote package X can always adapt it to new conventions, but often this is just not true: the developers may be working on other things now, their interests may have shifted, and great packages get left behind and are eventually lost. Let's make an example: George Necula in Berkeley wrote (with his students) CIL, a superb front-end to C code analysis. Suppose the Ocaml syntax changes in a non-trivial way. Would he be willing, and have time, to fix CIL? To spend his time in a job with zero innovation content, and lots of frustration? It is anyone's bet. And what about in five years from now? Who knows? There is a point in which people move on, and it is very important that software continues to work in a stable way, or we are losing great work all the time -- and there is some great work that is not easy at all to redo. Yes, the language survives, but the software not always. Luca On 8/19/07, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 06:07:16PM +0100, Richard Jones wrote: > > It's not likely that the syntax can be changed (how is the revised > > syntax doing lately?) but there is one error message which could be > > Well, yes, the syntax can be changed and it isn't hard either. > > It's just a matter of stating something like =ABfrom version x.y the > official syntax is the revised one, you can use the provided converter > for migrating your old code to the new syntax=BB. Other languages have > seen similar migrations in the past and they survived. > > Point is that upstream OCaml authors have never acknowledged that the > current syntax is more than sub-optimal and the fear of missing backward > compatibility has done the rest. > > The revised syntax is far better, but there has never been the > willingness to push it. > > Cheers. > > -- > Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what? > zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ > (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the > (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time > > _______________________________________________ > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > ------=_Part_145999_7970168.1187762671727 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Backward compatibility is of the UTMOST importance.
Developers tend to = assume that people who wrote package X can always adapt it to new conventio= ns, but often this is just not true: the developers may be working on other= things now, their interests may have shifted, and great packages get left = behind and are eventually lost.=20

Let's make an example: George Necula in Berkeley wrote (with hi= s students) CIL, a superb front-end to C code analysis.  Suppose the O= caml syntax changes in a non-trivial way.  Would he be willing, and ha= ve time, to fix CIL?  To spend his time in a job with zero innovation = content, and lots of frustration?  It is anyone's bet.  And w= hat about in five years from now? Who knows?=20

There is a point in which people move on, and it is very important = that software continues to work in a stable way, or we are losing great wor= k all the time -- and there is some great work that is not easy at all to r= edo.  Yes, the language survives, but the software not always.=20

Luca

On 8/19/07, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@bononia.it> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 06:07:16PM +0100, Richard Jones wrote:
> It&#= 39;s not likely that the syntax can be changed (how is the revised
> = syntax doing lately?) but there is one error message which could be

Well, yes, the syntax can be changed and it isn't hard either.
<= br>It's just a matter of stating something like =ABfrom version x.y the=
official syntax is the revised one, you can use the provided converter
for migrating your old code to the new syntax=BB. Other languages have<= br>seen similar migrations in the past and they survived.

Point is t= hat upstream OCaml authors have never acknowledged that the
current synt= ax is more than sub-optimal and the fear of missing backward
compatibility has done the rest.

The revised syntax is far bette= r, but there has never been the
willingness to push it.

Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... = now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%= - http://www.bononia.it/zack/(15:56:48)  Zack: e la demo dema ?    /\&nb= sp;   All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15)  Bac: no, la demo scema    \/&= nbsp;   right keys at the right time

________________= _______________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription man= agement:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: <= a href=3D"http://caml.inria.fr">http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's = list: http://grou= ps.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://= caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

------=_Part_145999_7970168.1187762671727--