English version
Accueil     Ŕ propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis ŕ jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml ŕ l'adresse ocaml.org.

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: 2004-03-18 (20:10)
From: John Carr <jfc@m...>
Subject: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library)

> > 1. Nobody else knows the language.
> > 2. It doesn't run on our platform.
> > 3. It will break and we can't get support.
> 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"

Suppose we find a bug in ocaml that impacts our product.
Whose job is it to fix the bug?  Neither "a network of
hackers" nor "some academic researchers in France, if they
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.

Consider points 2 and 3 as axioms.  They were dictated to
me by management and were not subject to debate.  As long
as there is a shadow of a doubt about support, ocaml won't
be used where I work.

The library system is troublesome -- non-core libraries need
other libraries, which need other libraries, and so on -- but
in this case it didn't make a difference.

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