From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id JAA06550; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:03:12 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA06827 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:03:11 +0200 (MET DST) X-SPAM-Warning: Sending machine is listed in blackholes.five-ten-sg.com Received: from wetware.com (wetware.wetware.com [199.108.16.1]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i38739YM026968 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:03:10 +0200 Received: from [208.177.152.18] (helo=[10.0.1.5]) by wetware.com with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBTZ7-0003np-36; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:03:09 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20040407230339.76481.qmail@web41212.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040407230339.76481.qmail@web41212.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: caml-list From: james woodyatt Subject: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 00:03:09 -0700 To: Vasili Galchin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) X-Miltered: at concorde by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; woodyatt:01 jhw:01 wetware:01 ocaml's:01 caml-list:01 run-time:01 declarative:01 terrible:01 terrible:01 sarcasm:01 forked:01 woodyatt:01 jhw:01 wetware:01 ocaml:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 125 On 07 Apr 2004, at 16:03, Vasili Galchin wrote: > > You misunderstood my point. I was saying that if > OCaml and other nice declarative languages like it > don't stop being science projects then all we in > industry have for alternatives are terrible languages > like C++! I think it would be ever so convenient for industry if the scientists would stop hoarding all the perfectly good technology solutions in their palatial research laboratories where industry has absolutely no control over their development. If the scientists were only a little more accommodating, then industry wouldn't have to use all those terrible alternative technologies they've been saddled with all these years. It's so unfair. > I wasn't in anyway suggesting a process that > has been adopted for C++. Instead I was merely > suggesting (prodding) for everybody to get off the > dime and see code somehow make it through a gatekeeper > and into the mainstream. It wouldn't be the first time a language forked because of diverging interests between researchers and commercial interests. Perhaps there is nothing really new under the sun. Seriously, and I'm trying to be helpful here, it is not the scientists who decide what is useful to industry. It is industry that decides what are the useful applications of research. If industry wants a standard definition of a language system with all the features of Ocaml, then industry will make one. -- j h woodyatt markets are only free to the people who own them. ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners