From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p2V9NIGx002688 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:23:18 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsUFAGFHlE0+3JIE/2dsb2JhbACYTYYGhnx3iHm1WoVrBIF7ixaDVQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,274,1299452400"; d="scan'208,217";a="79530991" Received: from vs.philou.ch ([62.220.146.4]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2011 11:23:13 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.120] (85-218-16-131.dclient.lsne.ch [85.218.16.131]) by vs.philou.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0D6923250E for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:23:12 +0200 (CEST) From: Philippe Strauss Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--1013838911 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:23:11 +0200 In-Reply-To: To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <4D9328A0.3020504@wp.pl> <25BB4625-7DB0-47E2-A378-5F121EB41EB8@gmail.com> Message-Id: <6FE49D01-1E57-4AB5-A9A7-5BEEFFDC59C9@philou.ch> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Arithmetic operations --Apple-Mail-2--1013838911 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Le 31 mars 2011 =E0 10:19, Pierre-Alexandre Voye a =E9crit : > It's funny, because I'm studying why language succeed or not, for my M1 d= issertation (M1 Management), and it's one of the big factor, among others, = of sucess. > Ocaml is highly expressive, so you could turn around, but it's a big prob= lem. >=20 > I think it would be important and interesting to create a little organiza= tion which discuss bout a standard lib and would begin making a synthesis o= f all these "standard" library. Personally I'm not that unhappy with the standard lib shipped by INRIA. maybe batteries and janestreet core (to name nowadays alternatives) have to= o big ambitions: extension library aside INRIA's standard lib would have mo= re users than a complete alternative. the way you can get haskell packaged easily, on the contrary, as some big a= ppeal. >=20 > It would be very interesting too, to a lot of company which could take a= dvantage of the "0 debug" advantages of caml : This fact imply a lot of cut= in software building costs which would be a great advantage for company wh= o would offer service based on OCaml. >=20 > OCaml is now mature, it could be considered out of the laboratory, it thu= s become able to cross the chasm : > http://robrozicki.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/crossing_the_chasm1.png >=20 > But making a good compiler with a minimal API isn't sufficient. >=20 > So, in summary : > - OCaml is ready to cross the chasm, it was too early 10 years ago > - Ocaml need a huge __standard__ API. And there a lot of work to unify ab= out this > - Ocaml need a standard lib package management, and some good ones exist = for Ocaml --Apple-Mail-2--1013838911 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Le 31 mars 2= 011 =E0 10:19, Pierre-Alexandre Voye a =E9crit :

It's funny, because I'm studyi= ng why language succeed or not, for my M1 dissertation (M1 Management), and= it's one of the big factor, among others, of sucess.
Ocaml is highly ex= pressive, so you could turn around, but it's a big problem.

I think it would be important and interesting to create a little organi= zation which discuss bout a standard lib and would begin making a synthesis= of all these "standard" library.

Perso= nally I'm not that unhappy with the standard lib shipped by INRIA.

maybe batteries and janestreet core (to name nowadays alte= rnatives) have too big ambitions: extension library aside INRIA's standard = lib would have more users than a complete alternative.

=
the way you can get haskell packaged easily, on the contrary, as some = big appeal.


It would be very interes= ting too, to  a lot of company which could take advantage of the "0 de= bug" advantages of caml : This fact imply a lot of cut in software building= costs which would be a great advantage for company who would offer service= based on OCaml.

OCaml is now mature, it could be considered out of the laboratory, it t= hus become able to cross the chasm :
http://rob= rozicki.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/crossing_the_chasm1.png

But making a good compiler with a minimal API isn't sufficient.

= So, in summary :
- OCaml is ready to cross the chasm, it was too early 1= 0 years ago
- Ocaml need a huge __standard__ API. And there a lot of wor= k to unify about this
- Ocaml need a standard lib package management, and some good ones exist fo= r Ocaml

= --Apple-Mail-2--1013838911--