From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA10408 for caml-red; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:28:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA00148 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 20:06:12 +0100 (MET) Received: from dalilab.com ([63.203.128.164]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f03J6B129276 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 20:06:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from [63.198.73.142] (HELO kind.kindsoftware.com) by dalilab.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4b7) with ESMTP id 385268; Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:06:09 -0800 Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:06:09 -0800 From: "Joseph R. Kiniry" Reply-To: "Joseph R. Kiniry" To: OCAML cc: Markus Mottl , Mattias Waldau Subject: Re: JIT-compilation for OCaml? Message-ID: <70270000.978548769@kind.kindsoftware.com> In-Reply-To: <20010103195832.A30893@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.6b2 (Linux/x86) Organization: Department of Computer Science, Caltech X-Image-Url: http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~kiniry/graphics/jrk-8.99.jpg X-Url: http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~kiniry/ X-Face: 9X:!41!x9hOT+cJU.gb=hXxEm6v)ZczE-':_8mlM-7^G!j%2$QC00w?G "x_1ZnY3[!+gGQD.6%=0EMBt[m|kdKsr*m=3J&r(#is5]J>&eVWNy-h^DrtO_5jES gK6NFKoj%c=+E?*%+\S$Rn7Y|mT(a~1Y{[$MZR[8~(bK[P4]RM2E<"5:n|2Gm!V

7aWw 9+K|b{`Ou,uYaNn(`QDDR wrote: > On Wed, 03 Jan 2001, Joseph R. Kiniry wrote: >> > Why didn't you compare to OCaml or other FPLs (e.g. Haskell, Clean, >> > etc.)? Business reasons? >> >> Entirely. I would have been happy to work in OCaml, but trying to >> convince investors (who are reluctant enough to go with something like >> Objective-C or CLOS) that ML is a viable option is a hard-sell. Couple >> that with the whole training, hiring, maintenence, and Open Source >> issues and you hit a dead end immediately. > > It's sad that it is still so difficult to attract investors to modern > (as opposed to "new") technologies. OTOH, it is understandable that they > are reluctant if they know that you are likely to have problems hiring > or training staff (-> higher costs = less profit). And that is exactly the problem in my situation. The investors (myself being one of them) weren't that concerned with the choice of a non-mainstream/modern language/system for technical reasons, but we were entirely for many, many business reasons. > How is the situation in France? Isn't (O)Caml used in most universities / > hautes ecoles for teaching? There should be much more "programmer supply" > over there (but probably not enough "venture capital supply" as compared > to the US...). > > I do not really follow your concerns about Open Source: OCaml is pretty > "free" as are most other FPLs. Or do you mean something else? I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit. I meant that if you are developing and Open Source product and you'd like large scale involvement, choosing OCaml as a source language isn't in your best interest. While it is true that you are likely to get higher quality people involved, the source pool is several orders of magnitude smaller than that of Java. Joe -- Joseph R. Kiniry http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~kiniry/ California Institute of Technology ID 78860581 ICQ 4344804