From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40EDBB84 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:29:05 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkYCAOmvbUlDww/TlGdsb2JhbACOYIU2AQEBAQkLCAkRA6xNjj4FAgGFbA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.37,263,1231110000"; d="scan'208";a="19602591" Received: from web111514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com ([67.195.15.211]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 14 Jan 2009 18:29:04 +0100 Received: (qmail 52490 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Jan 2009 17:28:59 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=6bIRglViqGpafO8LqwEc79Bg2IO9YDhAlTWWIrgbhT4j5UiUwRAy+O1ghPHCiHyLC4BrU/on+FhseR1tvhhFwjpSAwC8fic542DgwIzvVtXcs8sINIzYbvLECYFCSKmcwe6lUM2Jo2R+ntzgsaRftFS5SUCX4q7rXxIDdLxffZQ=; X-YMail-OSG: uDytVp4VM1nTAB7Y.Su40IK3qUm7xiDJy.pZcP07SpSbYNxoOoNI8MRK.LbTjChY0kecC09xrGXJ0WKizr7zgxEXfbnJn.zVpUzEfiA63k5yMBkA0KZgDMmTszLj8mXSZnp9xONePcjkNLYYns2QAPuk2p8Hyh6J9VNaXxQgicKaEB6METZXxjqjrTt2lA-- Received: from [213.205.70.211] by web111514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:28:59 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:28:59 -0800 (PST) From: Dario Teixeira Subject: Re: [Caml-list] What is a future of ocaml? To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr, Dawid Toton In-Reply-To: <496DEC48.7000906@wp.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <861603.52177.qm@web111514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 compiler:01 ocaml:01 'ocaml:01 bugfixes:01 cheers:01 optimistic:98 sizable:98 losses:98 wives:98 caml-list:01 productivity:04 ugly:04 monsieur:94 economy:94 Hi, > I understand that there's no manpower to push the core > compiler forward faster. But it would be a solace to know > that there are at least some optimistic plans with a broader > horizon. Speaking of which, there's something that's been on my mind for quite some time: what's the holdup preventing INRIA from having more manpower dedicated to Ocaml? The language already has a sizable community, a fair industrial usage, and a visible presence among the academia. I'm sure that given the language advantages that we all know, if it had more widespread usage there would be a positive multiplier effect on the French economy and beyond (think of productivity losses resulting from crappy language choices). Should we write a letter to monsieur le pr=E9sident telling him that a well-supported Ocaml language would do a lot more "pour la gloire de la France" than supermodel wives? > Is there any hope for a grand 'OCaml 4' release that would iron out > the last ugly spots left in the language with some breaking changes? Backwards compatibility is overrated in an open-source environment. However, to avoid alienating users with large code bases in legacy code, the best solution would be to keep 3.x being updated for bugfixes for the foreseeable future (would that require all that much manpower?), while simultaneously developing a version 4.0 not hindered by backwards compatibility. Cheers, Dario Teixeira =0A=0A=0A