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 AAA30290; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:31:28 +0100 (MET) 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 AAA30423 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:31:26 +0100 (MET) Received: from rabelais.socialtools.net (rabelais.socialtools.net [81.2.94.243]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2INVOHd000917 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:31:25 +0100 Received: by rabelais.socialtools.net (Postfix, from userid 108) id 651CE232FD; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:31:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from socialtools.net (chaucer.socialtools.net [81.2.94.242]) by rabelais.socialtools.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F55B232DA; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:31:23 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <405A314A.8070006@socialtools.net> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:31:22 +0000 From: Benjamin Geer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, fr, it MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Carr Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library) References: <200403182010.i2IKAK1a008157@nerd-xing.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <200403182010.i2IKAK1a008157@nerd-xing.mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on rabelais.socialtools.net X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.63 X-Miltered: at concorde by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml's:01 caml-list:01 run-time:01 bug:01 ocaml:01 complexity:02 unix:02 wrote:03 library:03 cathedral:95 carr:05 embedded:05 generally:05 completeness:93 feature:07 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 187 John Carr wrote: > We pay a company > to provide us with an embedded Linux environment including > cross-compilation tools. While in reality ocaml will be > more reliable than g++ due to the vast difference in > complexity, that doesn't overcome the fear. Moreover, because g++ has an open development process, if that company fixes a bug in g++, or adds a generally useful feature, you can be pretty sure that it will end up in an official release of g++ as long as it is well-written and well-tested. This very fact encourages such companies to appear. Ben ------------------- 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