From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15106BCAE for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:59:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j6ILxgqC003279 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:59:42 +0200 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 XAA05111 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:59:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from gradient.cis.upenn.edu (GRADIENT.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.67.48]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j6ILxeKk003274 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:59:41 +0200 Received: from gradient.cis.upenn.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gradient.cis.upenn.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j6ILttJM003767 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (agoodloe@localhost) by gradient.cis.upenn.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id j6ILtsWu003763 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:55:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Alwyn Goodloe To: Ocaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] (Mostly) Functional Design? In-Reply-To: <1121722053.6774.93.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <9cc3782b05071411004b27b6a4@mail.gmail.com> <42DB6161.4030507@cs.utah.edu> <42DB74DC.8030201@barettadeit.com> <42DBF1C6.7080005@cs.utah.edu> <1121722053.6774.93.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 42DC264E.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 42DC264C.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; alwyn:01 goodloe:01 upenn:01 caml-list:01 productive:01 morelli:01 ocaml:01 2005,:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 sourceforge:01 shops:98 functional:02 productivity:03 languages:03 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: We have to be cautious here. For about three years I was involved in evaluating technology for a large organization. Like most organizations, about 1/3 of the development was your standard GUI entry/SQL querries. Like most shops we wanted to pick something modern that was good for apps as well as had a great GUI/SQL interface. Java worked well for us. If someone came to me with and showed me a language that made 2/3 of my developers more productive, I would be quite happy. But here is the killer -- I have to ask about the other 1/3. We were trying to get away from supporting multiple languages. Its a nightmare from a support perspective. So my next question is about your GUI development environment. Is it as good as the others on the market? There are a lot of considerations that go into picking a language. With the execption of scripting languages, tools play a big part in this decision as do other factors. On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, skaller wrote: > On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 12:15 -0600, Robert Morelli wrote: > > > With all due respect, claims of order of magnitude productivity > > gains, that OCaml is a far better language than Java, etc. are > > exactly the kind of advocacy that I think is counterproductive. > > Most programmers would regard such dramatic statements as implausible, > > if not preposterous. > > Yes they would .. until they tried it. > > -- > John Skaller > >