Jean-Marc Eber wrote:
> happy that you posted it on the list.
> I didn't want to propose it to you, because I thank you wanted it to
> stay non public.
> JM


Oh, it was definitely meant to be public. It was astonishing 
for me to hear an ex-IBM researcher, a man on science, one 
would imagine, say that his customers are not interested in 
any new or advanced stuff. And I'm pretty sure he knows what 
he's talking about.

How can customers not realize that improvements in the 
production technology necessarily translate to reduced costs 
and improved quality? I'd be willing to pay more for a piece 
of software, if I had a compiler-generated proof that no 
segmentation fault can occur. There is a dose of absurdity 
in all this--although there is some sense, as well.

Xavier, let me ask a dumb question, if you don't mind: how 
do you choose which processor architectures to port ocamlopt 
to? Could .NET simply be regarded as a new "architecture" 
for ocamlopt?

At any rate, I am writing and deploying O'Caml programs. My 
customer has no internal EDP resources, so they are relying 
entirely on me. Of course, they did not ask what language I 
would write the code in. They only care to see it work, and 
they are not disappointed. Long live the Caml!

Alex

-------------------
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