Browse thread
[Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library
-
Vasili Galchin
- james woodyatt
-
Richard Jones
-
Shawn Wagner
-
Eric Stokes
-
Vasili Galchin
-
Eric Stokes
-
Vasili Galchin
-
Matt Gushee
-
Richard Jones
-
Nicolas Cannasse
- Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons
- Wolfgang Müller
-
John Carr
-
Richard Jones
-
oliver@f...
-
John Carr
-
Richard Jones
- Jacques Garrigue
- Benjamin Geer
- Michael Vanier
- Sven Luther
-
Richard Jones
- Sven Luther
-
John Carr
-
oliver@f...
-
Richard Jones
-
Nicolas Cannasse
- Shawn Wagner
- Vasili Galchin
- Vasili Galchin
-
Richard Jones
-
Matt Gushee
-
Vasili Galchin
-
Eric Stokes
-
Vasili Galchin
-
Eric Stokes
-
Shawn Wagner
- Stefano Zacchiroli
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ 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 Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 07:41:18PM +0100, Oliver Bandel wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 01:56:50PM +0000, Richard Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 08:12:36AM -0500, John Carr wrote: > > > 1. Nobody else knows the language. > > > 2. It doesn't run on our platform. > > > 3. It will break and we can't get support. > > > > These things will always be a problem until OCaml becomes (to use a > > marketing term) a "whole product". This means that it has a full > > suite of supporting skills and documentation. There are currently two > > books, and a few web tutorials. For OCaml to become a whole product > > we'd need to see a few shelves full of books at the local bookstore, > > and specialists in each city offering support, and major external > > companies signing on. > > Point 1 => same problem as with Linux about ten years ago > > Point 2 => really not running on that platform? > > Point 3 => The INRIA-cathedral will help to prevent this problem > in the sense of "we do not allow any hacker to make > changes in the core language" Again, as the debian maintainer of the ocaml package, i have to agree here. I package mostly the pure ocaml distribution, with a serie of patches, applied as needed, but always either picked up from CVS or discussed with upstream. The time i choose to apply a random patch, like the early ocaml -i support one, i had the bad surprise of breaking .cmi generation compatibiliy between the native and byte code compilers, which was a cold water shower for me (err, bad french translation, i suppose you don't say that in english). Anyway, since then i refrained from applying random external patches. Now, what would really make my day would be for the ocaml team to decide to go the professional way, and to maintain both a development CVS branch, and a stable bugfix CVS branch, which would avoid having to get some random brokeness when one want to get serious bug fixes. Sorry Xavier, i know i told you that many times already, and you told me that your devel model was yours to choose, but i couldn't resist a gentle proding :). I also don't believe this will be so much of a cost over the current model, and maybe even be less expensive in the long run. 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