From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id AAA03163; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:35:53 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA03195 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:35:52 +0200 (MET DST) X-SPAM-Warning: Sending machine is listed in blackholes.five-ten-sg.com Received: from athlon.baretta.com (r-mi214-6a1.tin.it [62.211.4.1]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g5IMZpP05892 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:35:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from baretta.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by athlon.baretta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B113027246 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:41:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3D0FB722.6000009@baretta.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:41:38 +0200 From: Alessandro Baretta Organization: Baretta srl -- www.baretta.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020417 X-Accept-Language: it, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ocaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Unix.file_descr -> int ??? References: <3D0F37E6.6000307@baretta.com> <000101c21705$d9f23640$0501a8c0@lexifi01> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Jean-Marc Eber wrote: > happy that you posted it on the list. > I didn't want to propose it to you, because I thank you wanted it to > stay non public. > JM Oh, it was definitely meant to be public. It was astonishing for me to hear an ex-IBM researcher, a man on science, one would imagine, say that his customers are not interested in any new or advanced stuff. And I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about. How can customers not realize that improvements in the production technology necessarily translate to reduced costs and improved quality? I'd be willing to pay more for a piece of software, if I had a compiler-generated proof that no segmentation fault can occur. There is a dose of absurdity in all this--although there is some sense, as well. Xavier, let me ask a dumb question, if you don't mind: how do you choose which processor architectures to port ocamlopt to? Could .NET simply be regarded as a new "architecture" for ocamlopt? At any rate, I am writing and deploying O'Caml programs. My customer has no internal EDP resources, so they are relying entirely on me. Of course, they did not ask what language I would write the code in. They only care to see it work, and they are not disappointed. Long live the Caml! Alex ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners