Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2004-03-20 (06:23)
From: Vasili Galchin <vasiliocaml@y...>
Subject: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library)

   Thank you! I was away for a bit. You are not being
grandiose at all. When I started the discussion about
"Unix completeness", I was tactfully (maybe not so
tactfully) asking why OCaml is not like Linux??!! Your
metaphor is exactly where I was going. I really want
to see to a functional language make it into the
mainstream (i.e. I have programmed in imperative
languages all of my 28 year career ... nothing has
changed). After looking at various FPL code bases, I
really believe taht OCaml has a shot assuming we all
take the challenge seriously (I have been in American
industry for 26 years ... which sadly is far too
pragmatic and conservative to change).

Regards, Vasili
--- Matt Gushee <> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 04:19:05PM -0800, Vasili
> Galchin wrote:
> > > and so, those of us who have created bindings
> for
> > > other Posix functions 
> > > should
> > > try to work with them to get our code merged.
> This
> >      Eric, it sounds to me that you and I are on
> the
> > same page, i.e. in total agreement. What prompted
> my
> > posting is that I feel a tad frustrated when I
> read
> > code that I believe is very good (e.g. Georgi's
> ipv6
> > socket code where he split socket stuff out from
> > by itself making readibility much better
> and
> > esaier multiple people to work and not having big
> > merge problems) and I hear about other code. In
> both
> > cases, these new code seems to have been sitting
> > around and not code reviewed and put into CVS,
> where
> > it should be. Also there is a danger of some
> > divergence because someone will use some of this
> > non-checked in code and it becomes defacto
> standard.
> > So, OCaml community, how do we move forward to get
> > this new processed and potentially merged into the
> > mainline.
> (Sorry about the grandiose title. I have nothing
> suitably profound to
>  say ... just couldn't think of a better way to
> express the subject.)
> I wonder if it is possible to persuade INRIA to do
> anything.
> I have no inside information on the process at
> INRIA, but my impression
> from reading this list over the past year or so is:
>  1) The OCaml team at INRIA care about the
> community, but there are too
>     few of them to meet all our needs, and I suppose
> their work is also
>     subject to institutional pressures that we are
> only vaguely aware
>     of. Maybe they are struggling to keep enough
> resources for OCaml
>     work.
>  2) INRIA as an institution finds it convenient to
> release OCaml as open
>     source, but doesn't really care about the
> community. They benignly
>     neglect everything that doesn't relate to their
> research goals.
>  3) OCaml-as-project (i.e. I'm talking about how
> OCaml is developed, not
>     what it is) is a fragile enterprise. E.g., one
> developer leaves, and 
>     the future of Camlp4 becomes uncertain. Not
> good.
> I'm not saying you should give up hope just yet, but
> maybe it's time to
> consider alternatives.
> What if there were an "OCaml Community Library
> Project"--a group outside
> INRIA that would take responsibility for extending
> and perhaps partially
> replacing the standard library--maybe a bit like the
> current ExtLib
> project, only more extensive (BTW, why are there two
> ExtLibs?? One of
> you change the name, please! Thank you.). Maybe if
> that project showed
> itself to be responsible, credible, reliable, etc.
> etc., after a while
> it could become the de facto standard library.
> The idealistic scenario is a division of labor
> wherein INRIA continues
> to develop the parts of OCaml that are interesting
> to them, while other
> parts (of more interest to those of us working to
> create practical
> and/or commercial software) would be taken over by
> the community.
> I can't say whether this idea is feasible, or
> whether INRIA would be
> willing to go along with it, but maybe it's
> something to consider.
> -- 
> Matt Gushee                 When a nation follows
> the Way,
> Englewood, Colorado, USA    Horses bear manure
> through
>           its fields;
>   When a nation ignores
> the Way,
>                             Horses bear soldiers
> through
>                                 its streets.
>                             --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel,
> trans.)
> -------------------
> To unsubscribe, mail
> Archives:
> Bug reports: FAQ:
> Beginner's list:

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: