From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q04Aw1wh031478 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:58:01 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Am8BAOQvBE/RVdgvkGdsb2JhbABDggWDC6dPCCIBAQEBCQkNBxQEIYFyAQEBBBICDx0BGxAKAwEDDAYDAgQHNwICIQEBEQEFARwGExQCDIdgmHYKix1Igm2EWj+IcQIFC4pugRYElQSKb4MOPYN7 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,455,1320620400"; d="scan'208";a="137796384" Received: from mail-qw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.216.47]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 04 Jan 2012 11:57:55 +0100 Received: by qadb17 with SMTP id b17so10841890qad.6 for ; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 02:57:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=LDWIBBPnnbt0XpVVx5JnjqZv69ryx2RI3JxWSA9bbvM=; b=R7zDDmiTgVwcpy+rMgLI53gLyciXnrSbVZSlGsdmywL/EoLxbv055VL/kkTy7ZrQLZ o7uaQv1RZNh+gMNgmcE2YXqSEDuxGSFK/p9tcg3Kwyl7vN8cDruOdbXzZrT7CG461isk IQOtuiwygiXi/wLMTmOY/qzlNG+6oDAAJ+t3A= Received: by 10.224.177.132 with SMTP id bi4mr33771510qab.79.1325674674143; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 02:57:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.30.4 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 02:57:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Pierre-Alexandre Voye Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:57:33 +0100 Message-ID: To: Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons Cc: caml-list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf302ef9240a42bc04b5b1b000 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] "Let"-less syntax for coreML --20cf302ef9240a42bc04b5b1b000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I wrote a memoire about "why language succeed", and my conclusion was people prefers simple concept at first, even if complex problem become intricately more complex with simpler langage than more powerful like ML/Haskell/Smalltalk/whatever. People are lazy, they don't want to think, they want to write lines of code. Plus, IMHO, imperative permit people to construct algorithms step by step, rather FP which oblige to have a precise idea of your algorithm. IT Industry wants programmers as factory worker (especially in France), they don't want educated people with mathematical background (95% of my former business associate don't know what "Turing complete" is). IT industry is not interested by productivity improvment at all, it would reduce their margin... Jacquard-loom syndrome.. So unhappily, ML/Haskell/Smalltalk/Prolog/Whatever will remain an elite language. You can turn around about many topics (syntax, education, etc...), theses languages will gain what ? 1 or 3% ? 2012/1/4 Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons > [cut] > > The underlying question is "how to make ML mainstream" which is what the > (broad) ML community has been trying to do for decades with limited > success. Among other things we have tried > - standards (SML, Haskell 98) with multiple implementations > - optimizing compilers (OCaml, MLTon) > - education (first language, data structures, books) > - (killer) applications > - popular virtual machines (Java, CLR) to reuse their code base > - web (Caml as browser extension language in MMM, Caml to JavaScript > compilation) > and many more > > Agreed that many of these were successful research projects, not > specifically meant to take over the world (of programming languages). > > The result is two folds > - a technical success : check the code written by the INRIA teams, almost > everyone uses Caml but those with very specific needs (Java rewriting > systems, Prolog, high performance Grobner basis, etc). > - a mainstream failure : limited industrial usage besides a couple of > companies > > Diego Olivier > -- --------------------- https://twitter.com/#!/ontologiae/ http://linuxfr.org/users/montaigne --20cf302ef9240a42bc04b5b1b000 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I wrote a memoire about "why language succeed", and my co= nclusion was people prefers simple concept at first, even if complex proble= m become intricately=C2=A0 more complex with simpler langage than more powe= rful like ML/Haskell/Smalltalk/whatever.
People are lazy, they don't want to think, they want to write lines of = code.
Plus, IMHO, imperative permit people to construct algorithms step = by step, rather FP which oblige to have a precise idea of your algorithm. <= br> IT Industry wants programmers as factory worker (especially in France), the= y don't want educated people with mathematical background (95% of my fo= rmer business associate don't know what "Turing complete" is)= .
IT industry is not interested by productivity improvment at all, it would r= educe their margin... Jacquard-loom syndrome..
So unhappily, ML/Haskell/= Smalltalk/Prolog/Whatever will remain an elite language.

You can tur= n around about many topics (syntax, education, etc...), theses languages wi= ll gain what ? 1 or 3% ?

2012/1/4 Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons <dofp.ocaml@gmail.co= m>
=C2=A0=C2=A0 [cut]

The underlying question is "how to make ML mainstream" which is = what the (broad) ML community has been trying to do for decades with limite= d success. Among other things we have tried
- standards (SML, Haskell 98) with multiple implementations
- opt= imizing compilers (OCaml, MLTon)
- education (first language, dat= a structures, books)
- (killer) applications
- popular = virtual machines (Java, CLR) to reuse their code base
- web (Caml as browser extension language in MMM, Caml to JavaScript c= ompilation)
and many more

Agreed that ma= ny of these were successful research projects, not specifically meant to ta= ke over the world (of programming languages).

The result is two folds
- a technical success= : check the code written by the INRIA teams, almost everyone uses Caml but= those with very specific needs (Java rewriting systems, Prolog, high perfo= rmance Grobner basis, etc).
- a mainstream failure : limited industrial usage besides a couple of = companies

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Diego Olivier



--
---------------------https:= //twitter.com/#!/ontologiae/
http://linuxfr.org/users/montaigne

--20cf302ef9240a42bc04b5b1b000--