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 AAA30619; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 00:42:39 +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 AAA30204 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 00:42:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail3.tpgi.com.au (mail.tpgi.com.au [203.12.160.59]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h52MgZH02386 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 00:42:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ozemail.com.au (203-219-225-121-syd-ts24-2600.tpgi.com.au [203.219.225.121]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by mail3.tpgi.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52MgWt11102 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 08:42:32 +1000 Message-ID: <3EDBD2D8.9000508@ozemail.com.au> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 08:42:32 +1000 From: John Max Skaller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2.1) Gecko/20010901 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'caml-list@inria.fr'" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml and large development projects References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030517225010.04b748a0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20030519120753.04545700@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; ozemail:01 caml-list:01 hecker:01 rant:01 rave:99 organise:99 consumers:99 interfacing:01 model:01 enforced:01 extensively:01 toxteth:01 glebe:01 2037,:01 9660:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Chris Hecker wrote: >> Maybe. C++ and Java are toy languages, then. > > > This statement plays well on a mailing list for an alternative language, > but the reality is fairly different and most people writing large > software in C++ would write you off as a loon if you said this to them. With due respect: most software houses emply smart people that know no computer science. One can blame universities for not teaching it I suppose. These software houses insist on using bad tools all the time, they insist on using engineering methodology entirely inappropriate for software development, they DARE to rant and rave about how good object orientation is, and then organise their people in heirarchical teams. Basically, they're total morons on an organisational level, even if the individiuals are quite smart. Unfortunately one must cry, that these people are well paid to rip off investors, consumers, taxpayers, and just about everyone else. Most haven't even heard of functional programming. In other words, their opinion about separate compilation just doesn't count for anything in my books: why would I listen to some idiot that thinks Java is a good language? In my opinion, the major weakness of Ocaml industrially is that one cannot currently generate shared libraries. (Interfacing with C/C++ is also problematic but possible). The reason is that the modern separate compilation model *enforced* my operating system technology, and used extensively for large scale projects, is not separate compilation and static linkage into a program, but building of shared libraries: Ocaml(opt) is targetting the wrong kind of object, no one is interested in programs these days (they're built with scripting languages). They're interested in reusable binary components. I can't argue if this is right or wrong, but it is a fact that that is what people need to build. The Ocaml team surely knows this and is working towards implementing it (witness preparatory work on linking C parts of Ocaml as shared libraries). -- John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@ozemail.com.au snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia. voice:61-2-9660-0850 ------------------- 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