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=1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96FDABC69 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 04:36:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.175]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l283aKgu025051 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 04:36:20 +0100 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id k3so773667ugf for ; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:36:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=fTFxIwMBgrZgiJmH31htQomnvqW1PSfoo9H4DPSCFH9KuHr6ZK79gfsgx5t+bV4w2FtTkBFnHIINPr8SOGMthdclj5lemuCFA+Vu0D7djCI6xiiQM2meyM9/OFcPjWhXfXLYAlvyjMgQ2dpEqTbHKvq/2vvn6PK0n2jc4qXo+sE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=HsqCfThgbviYjarM0ECYP+CNT0C5fwBiQSz/oHYHc8P5epvOo6IhiEvHp/qAlEWH7bnuunxn5bl5kX+YgiQPERLOatcpoQY9hNhMAwX4QeFXy1ky+/wvHwznO9spUPh5+do04VZtvG/JSsN3qFptqpXpK+t7WS4LByzf4l2doZY= Received: by 10.115.108.1 with SMTP id k1mr2459651wam.1173324978519; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:36:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.168.3 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:36:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 22:36:18 -0500 From: "Jim Miller" To: skaller Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Interactive technical computing Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <1173324431.12230.94.camel@rosella.wigram> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_216007_26430778.1173324978476" References: <200703080113.22721.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <1173322347.12230.61.camel@rosella.wigram> <1173323451.12230.77.camel@rosella.wigram> <1173324431.12230.94.camel@rosella.wigram> X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 45EF84B4.000 on discorde : j-chkmail score : X : 0/20 1 0.000 -> 1 X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 45EF84B4.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 warming:98 warming:98 sourceforge:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 data:02 data:02 executable:03 executable:03 languages:03 languages:03 ------=_Part_216007_26430778.1173324978476 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline >>From a marketing perspective a price point in the 100s is definitely more reasonable than the thousands, obviously :-) What's I think is the interesting point about this discussion is "What are the hurdles toward acceptance of any new language, scripting or not, into a given community?" Obviously OCAML and the ML languages have deeply penetrated some markets but haven't even dented others. There have been lots of papers, studies, and discussion written on this ( lambda-the-ultimate.org has many of them archived) so that's probably something for a different thread to be read wearing flame-retardant underthings. Professionally I'm in a community that could deeply benefit from the type of language that would allow for scripting, data analysis, etc, that could then be directly compiled into tight executable code. While the barriers to entry to that market could be high, I'm in a position where I could see selling it. I could actually get really excited about this. Probably something to take off list if this is something to pursue On 3/7/07, skaller wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 22:19 -0500, Jim Miller wrote: > > Ah, I misunderstood ... > > > > I would say that with the researchers I know of and work with, the > > answer would be no. $5K these days is a lot of money for most of the > > scientists I'm working with, to the point that they're actually using > > Octave and R (free) and moving away from buying their analysis > > packages. > > So how about $500? I just picked a random number out of the air. > > Don't forget .. the general framework Harrop describes isn't > restricted to the science market, certainly not just atmospherics. > > Although with the current hype about global warming, atmospheric > modelling might get additional funds pumped in .. :) > > -- > John Skaller > Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net > ------=_Part_216007_26430778.1173324978476 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline >>From a marketing perspective a price point in the 100s is definitely more reasonable than the thousands, obviously :-)

What's I think is the interesting point about this discussion is "What are the hurdles toward acceptance of any new language, scripting or not, into a given community?"  Obviously OCAML and the ML languages have deeply penetrated some markets but haven't even dented others.  There have been lots of papers, studies, and discussion written on this ( lambda-the-ultimate.org has many of them archived) so that's probably something for a different thread to be read wearing flame-retardant underthings.

Professionally I'm in a community that could deeply benefit from the type of language that would allow for scripting, data analysis, etc, that could then be directly compiled into tight executable code.  While the barriers to entry to that market could be high, I'm in a position where I could see selling it.  I could actually get really excited about this.

Probably something to take off list if this is something to pursue

On 3/7/07, skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net > wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 22:19 -0500, Jim Miller wrote:
> Ah, I misunderstood ...
>
> I would say that with the researchers I know of and work with, the
> answer would be no.  $5K these days is a lot of money for most of the
> scientists I'm working with, to the point that they're actually using
> Octave and R (free) and moving away from buying their analysis
> packages.

So how about $500? I just picked a random number out of the air.

Don't forget .. the general framework Harrop describes isn't
restricted to the science market, certainly not just atmospherics.

Although with the current hype about global warming, atmospheric
modelling might get additional funds pumped in .. :)

--
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net

------=_Part_216007_26430778.1173324978476--