Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
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: -- (:)
From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@w...>
Subject: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library)
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 08:20:37AM -0500, John Carr wrote:
> 
> [In reply to management concerns about support for ocaml and
> commercial product development:]
> 
> > Well, nothing is stopping you from paying a programmer to fix the bug,
> > and have it integrated in the upstream release.
> 
> Telling management that we need to hire a compiler expert won't
> persuade them to allow ocaml.
> 
> I and other programmers tried to convince the company to use
> ClearCase.  It would have made some of our work a lot easier.
> We were told no, because conventional wisdom says ClearCase
> needs a dedicated system administrator and they didn't want to
> hire another person.  Real costs win over hypothetical savings.

I don't understand. You wrote :

  have the time" is an acceptable answer.  We pay a company
  to provide us with an embedded Linux environment including
  cross-compilation tools.  While in reality ocaml will be
  more reliable than g++ due to the vast difference in
  complexity, that doesn't overcome the fear.

So, how is that different participating in the Ocaml Consortium, and
thus making sure someone is paid to do the things you need ? Or is payng
for one thing ok, but not for the other ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther

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