Re: [Caml-list] Some comments on recent discussions

["Gerd Stolpmann" <info@gerd-stolpmann.de>]

> Dear OCaml hackers,
>
> I'm very uneasy about the current opinions that are voiced on the
> caml-list. I have good reasons to think I'm not the only one in that
> situation, so please allow me to raise a few concerns about some recent
> discussions.
>
> There's several subtopics in the "OCaml maintenance status / community
> fork" that I'd like to discuss.
>
> = Improving the community =
>
> I think the main point of the discussion is to improve "the community".
> If we really want to improve OCaml as a whole, then I think we can put
> our efforts on better areas than patching the compiler.

ACK. Of course, improving the compiler is a topic of its own. I can fully
understand Benedikt's frustration.

> == Package management system ==
>
> The thing that's most needed is, imho, a package manager that works.
> Oasis-db looked very promising as far as I could tell, but Sylvain
> doesn't have as much time as he used to do. Instead of hacking on our
> pet projects (which is, I admit, very rewarding), maybe someone could
> step up and make Oasis-db happen. We don't have a single, unified answer
> to "what should I install to easily hack with OCaml?". What made Python,
> Perl, Haskell successful is the package management systems. How much
> longer are we going to shy away from this issue? Sure, it's much more
> fun to hack on the compiler. Not as useful.

We discussed this often enough. I think Oasis-db is a part of that, but
not the answer to everything. It is more designed to package smaller
libraries.

If you want a more universal answer, you end up with something like GODI.

Btw, some quite popular languages can live entirely without package
management. What I mean: this makes life easier, but is not crucial to
adaption. Users choose languages because of other criteria.

> == Leaving our own corner of the web ==
>
> The OCaml community likes to stay in its own corner of the web, in
> isolation. We live on obscure web sites: who knows about ocamlforge
> outside the OCaml community? Who knows about the caml hump? We could
> host our projects on Sourceforge or on GitHub. We could get recognition
> in the open-source world through our projects, we could be more social,
> we could boost the language stats on ohloh, we could attract more
> contributors (being a fervent user of GitHub, I must say I've attracted
> a significant amount of contributors that way ; being on an obscure
> forge, I'm certain it would've never happened). We stay away from that.
> Why? Because GitHub is not open-source. The whole point of git is that
> everyone, everywhere has a backup copy and that we don't care if GitHub
> falls down. Nevermind.

This may all be true for a single person. A group is recognized
differently, though, especially by real social interaction (conferences,
meetings etc.), by press coverage, and by company support.

> GitHub

Can't we stop talking about such very technical things? There are ocaml
projects on GitHub, and ocaml popularity hasn't boosted because of this.

> = What is this about ? =
>
> If it's about improving the general situation with OCaml and its
> community (the title of this thread contains the word "community"), then
> I believe hacking on the compiler is not the most effective way to
> achieve that goal. We're hackers. We like to hack on things. And we
> often fail to ask ourselves: is it really worth implementing? Submitting
> patches is easy. Submitting quality patches that do solve a real problem
> is harder. The ARM backend does need a cleanup, and the patch does solve
> a stringent issue. That may not be the case for all patches.

You will for sure see troll patches - people trying to get something into
the compiler that should better not be solved there. I'm not sure whether
a community process can sort this all out. However, I'm not against trying
it, because there is a large class of undoubted problems (e.g. errors).

> There is indeed a problem w.r.t external contributions. I agree that the
> INRIA team could make it clearer what its stance on external
> contributions is.

I'd also like to hear this.

Gerd

> Maybe one solution would be to have a INRIA-endorsed
> ocaml-next on github that everyone can fork, where we would merge really
> outstanding features, before submitting them to INRIA, as you described.
> I don't think it is such a good idea creating a real fork. Maybe some
> sort of integration platform on GitHub would be the right solution to
> the "patch review" problem.
>
> I'm not even sure what kind of patches you wish to see integrated. Can
> you clarify that?
>
> = Conclusion =
>
> This is indeed a long rant, but I'd like to see us being more practical
> and down-to-earth. I love OCaml. I think we can do better for the
> language.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> jonathan
>
>
> --
> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>
>


-- 
Gerd Stolpmann, Darmstadt, Germany    gerd@gerd-stolpmann.de
Creator of GODI and camlcity.org.
Contact details:        http://www.camlcity.org/contact.html
Company homepage:       http://www.gerd-stolpmann.de
*** Searching for new projects! Need consulting for system
*** programming in Ocaml? Gerd Stolpmann can help you.