Brian Rogoff wrote:

> IMO, as someone with old code to maintain, I say fix things and make the
> language as close to perfect as you can. 

	For Ocaml, I agree, but then I don't have that much
old code I care about.

> When OCaml becomes so popular that it one of these standards
> organizations is involved, there will be significantly less ability to
> make incompatible changes.

	I like your positive approach  

	"When Ocaml becomes so popular .." :-)

> Anyways, more growth is good. If OCaml reaches Python's popularity, that
> would be great.

	But Python too is severely constrained by backwards 
compatibility requirements. It is the main reason I gave up on it
as a serious language: it is beyond fixing.

	OTOH, Ocaml doesn't really _need_ fixing :-)

> Perhaps we users should start writing
> tutorials, rather than asking INRIAns, as I'd rather that they work on
> growing the language.

	I'd love to, but the language isn't popular enough for me
to make enough money selling books on it: I'd make a respectable income
from C++ books, but I have lost enthusiasm for promoting it.
Blame Ocaml for that. Catch-22.

-- 
John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au
10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850
checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net
download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr