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: 2004-03-19 (23:15)
From: Eric Stokes <eric.stokes@c...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Structuring the Caml community (Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar)
And what makes all that you've said really bad is that is 
the first site I found. And I've found
it referenced in lots of other places. I still claim that the current site HAS the right idea,
and has a decent format. It isn't perfect, but what is. If some of the 
links to dead end projects were cleaned
off it, and the news items were updated, it would be a very good site.

On Mar 19, 2004, at 2:34 PM, Benjamin Geer wrote:

> Eric Stokes wrote:
>> (the index site, see #1)
>> Actually is a very good index site, almost on par with perl's. Has 
>> all the relevant requirements,
> I think it's an embarrassment.  It's an unmaintained site that hasn't 
> updated since 2002.  It's actually worse than no site at all, because 
> it contains links to dead projects (e.g. the Caml Development Kit and 
> the OCaml IRC Server, which doesn't even exist anymore).  As you point 
> out, the news items haven't been updated since 2002, which strongly 
> gives the impression that Caml is completely dead.  Worst of all, it 
> uses the word 'hacker', which to most managers means 'criminal that 
> tries to attack my servers'.  Whoever created this site would be doing 
> the Caml community a great service by taking it off the web.  The 
> site is ugly, but at least it's correct and up to date.
> Ben
> -------------------
> To unsubscribe, mail Archives: 
> Bug reports: FAQ: 
> Beginner's list:

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