Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
[oliver: [oliver: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [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: oliver@f...
Subject: [oliver: [oliver: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library)]]
Hi,

forwarded this from my outgoing-folder ("sent-mail"),
because I had intended to send to the list, but sent it
per PM. :(

Ciao,
   Oliver
----- Forwarded message from oliver@first.in-berlin.de -----

To: Benjamin Geer <ben@socialtools.net>
Subject: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library)

On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:42:54PM +0000, Benjamin Geer wrote:
[...]
> 
> I think Caml desperately needs an explicit development plan and a clear, 
> efficient process for accepting enhancements from the community.  Until 
> it has these, it will not be able to meet the needs of its users; many 
> of its users will be increasingly frustrated, and will eventually 
> abandon it.


How do you plan the results of research?

There will always be things you never will be able to plan.
That is the nature of research.

When I had to chose between those permanently developing langauges and
it's plans and the conservative cathedral-situation of OCaml
and the result of the languages, I definitly would chose Ocaml!

Nevertheless a CPAN-like institution to get other stuff,
will be a good idea.
But it also is a good idea to have an Ocaml, that is clear
and sharp and not cluttered into "we need this and that newest
update from that library and the newst from that library and..."
like it sometimes is necessary for system adiminstrators, who
always need the newest updates to fix another one of the so many
bugs, which comes along with the "we all put in our code"-behaviour.

So, when the conputer scientists, the academians are reasearching
and find out new things, it's good to have that going into
the OCaml ocde.
And IMHO it is good to keep that noise away (bugs and unnecessary
stuff) and have a solid and reliable language.

(To have gcc as an example can be turned into the opposite:
 There were many bugs and uncompatible versions and such...
 ...where you can see the disadvantages of bazaar-method, even
 when there is a development plan.)


Inside planning you find: We know how and what to do and when.
                          But we do not have the time to introduce
                          new research results into our code,
                          because we have to follow our plan.

Inside researching you find: We don't know today, but we will
                             research on that topic, and when
                             we found NEW things, we can use
                             it, and then we are on top, at the
                             state of the art.



Ciao,
   Oliver

----- End forwarded message -----

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