[Caml-list] The Caml morale crasher #1

[Caml-list] The Caml morale crasher #1

[Damien Guichard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 416 bytes --]

Hi all,

Do you remember the Smalltalk "morale crasher #1" ?

http://www.bytesmiths.com/Publications/9701ArchitectsVersusCoders.html

A similar story happened to me.

When annoucing an OCaml project on a public forum i have been advised to renunce lambdas because it would impede translation to "a less obscure, more popular language".

- damien

my lego web page: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/alphablock/


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1373 bytes --]

Re: [Caml-list] The Caml morale crasher #1

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Damien Guichard wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Do you remember the Smalltalk "morale crasher #1" ?
> 
> http://www.bytesmiths.com/Publications/9701ArchitectsVersusCoders.html
> 
> A similar story happened to me.
> 
> When annoucing an OCaml project on a public forum i have been
> advised to renunce lambdas because it would impede translation
> to "a less obscure, more popular language".

Since you are writing the code, you get to choose the language
and the features you wish to use. You also get to tell anyone
who disagrees to go jump :-).

Erik
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
  Erik de Castro Lopo  nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"I ran it on my DeathStation 9000 and demons flew out of my nose." --Kaz

Re: [Caml-list] The Caml morale crasher #1

[Matt Gushee]

Damien Guichard wrote:

> http://www.bytesmiths.com/Publications/9701ArchitectsVersusCoders.html

Unfortunately, I couldn't connect with this site, but I will venture a 
comment anyway. Since I know nothing about your project, I can only 
respond in the most general terms.

> When annoucing an OCaml project on a public forum i have been advised to 
> renunce lambdas because it would impede translation to "a less obscure, 
> more popular language".

And I imagine the same people who said that would also advise you not to 
use higher-order functions and variant types. Just sacrifice some of 
OCaml's most powerful features for the sake of compatibility ... or 
perhaps we should say (social) conformity. It might be a useful tactic 
in some specific cases, but as a general principle, if you're going to 
do that, why bother with OCaml at all?

Let's assume you had good reasons for choosing OCaml (people who use 
non-mainstream languages usually do). The question then is whether there 
is any practical need for the members of that forum to accept your 
methods. If so, then try again to make your case ... I'm sure there are 
people here who can suggest some "talking points." Otherwise, well, 
innovation has always met with resistance, and probably always will. 
Have confidence in your choices and forge ahead. Or give up. It's your 
choice.

Best of luck with your project.

--
Matt Gushee
Englewood, CO, USA

Re: [Caml-list] The Caml morale crasher #1

[Damien Guichard]

Hi,

Thanks for encouragements.

Indeed OCaml is all about lambdas, any OCaml function is a named-lambda.
OCaml without lambda-calculus is just impossible.
Another adjective for OCaml was "esoteric" and another about Milner type
system was "over the top feature".

I think the only possible answer is to deliver, the functionality overcomes
the resistance.
The first language that delivers has great chances to become the standard.
People that fear OCaml can deliver faster just prove OCaml is better.

- damien



----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Gushee" <mgushee@havenrock.com>
To: <caml-list@inria.fr>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The Caml morale crasher #1


> Damien Guichard wrote:
>
> > http://www.bytesmiths.com/Publications/9701ArchitectsVersusCoders.html
>
> Unfortunately, I couldn't connect with this site, but I will venture a
> comment anyway. Since I know nothing about your project, I can only
> respond in the most general terms.
>
> > When annoucing an OCaml project on a public forum i have been advised to
> > renunce lambdas because it would impede translation to "a less obscure,
> > more popular language".
>
> And I imagine the same people who said that would also advise you not to
> use higher-order functions and variant types. Just sacrifice some of
> OCaml's most powerful features for the sake of compatibility ... or
> perhaps we should say (social) conformity. It might be a useful tactic
> in some specific cases, but as a general principle, if you're going to
> do that, why bother with OCaml at all?
>
> Let's assume you had good reasons for choosing OCaml (people who use
> non-mainstream languages usually do). The question then is whether there
> is any practical need for the members of that forum to accept your
> methods. If so, then try again to make your case ... I'm sure there are
> people here who can suggest some "talking points." Otherwise, well,
> innovation has always met with resistance, and probably always will.
> Have confidence in your choices and forge ahead. Or give up. It's your
> choice.
>
> Best of luck with your project.
>
> --
> Matt Gushee
> Englewood, CO, USA
>
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>

Re: [Caml-list] The Caml morale crasher #1

[Damien Guichard]

Hi,

Thanks for encouragements.

Indeed OCaml is all about lambdas, any OCaml function is a named-lambda.
OCaml without lambda-calculus is just impossible.
Another adjective for OCaml was "esoteric" and another about Milner type
system was "over the top feature".

I think the only possible answer is to deliver, the functionality overcomes
the resistance.
The first language that delivers has great chances to become the standard.
People that fear OCaml can deliver faster just prove OCaml is better.

- damien



----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Gushee" <mgushee@havenrock.com>
To: <caml-list@inria.fr>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The Caml morale crasher #1


> Damien Guichard wrote:
>
> > http://www.bytesmiths.com/Publications/9701ArchitectsVersusCoders.html
>
> Unfortunately, I couldn't connect with this site, but I will venture a
> comment anyway. Since I know nothing about your project, I can only
> respond in the most general terms.
>
> > When annoucing an OCaml project on a public forum i have been advised to
> > renunce lambdas because it would impede translation to "a less obscure,
> > more popular language".
>
> And I imagine the same people who said that would also advise you not to
> use higher-order functions and variant types. Just sacrifice some of
> OCaml's most powerful features for the sake of compatibility ... or
> perhaps we should say (social) conformity. It might be a useful tactic
> in some specific cases, but as a general principle, if you're going to
> do that, why bother with OCaml at all?
>
> Let's assume you had good reasons for choosing OCaml (people who use
> non-mainstream languages usually do). The question then is whether there
> is any practical need for the members of that forum to accept your
> methods. If so, then try again to make your case ... I'm sure there are
> people here who can suggest some "talking points." Otherwise, well,
> innovation has always met with resistance, and probably always will.
> Have confidence in your choices and forge ahead. Or give up. It's your
> choice.
>
> Best of luck with your project.
>
> --
> Matt Gushee
> Englewood, CO, USA
>
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>

Re: [Caml-list] The Caml morale crasher #1

[Florian Weimer]

* Damien Guichard:

> When annoucing an OCaml project on a public forum i have been
> advised to renunce lambdas because it would impede translation to "a
> less obscure, more popular language".

Most languages offer strictly downward closures.  Even GCC's C
implementation has them. 8-)

Re: The Caml morale crasher #1

[Stefan Monnier]

>> renunce lambdas because it would impede translation to "a less obscure,
>> more popular language".

If you worry about translating your code into some other language in the
future, then lambda is the least of your worries,


        Stefan