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: | Vasili Galchin <vasiliocaml@y...> |
| Subject: | Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library) |
Matt, Thank you! I was away for a bit. You are not being grandiose at all. When I started the discussion about "Unix completeness", I was tactfully (maybe not so tactfully) asking why OCaml is not like Linux??!! Your metaphor is exactly where I was going. I really want to see to a functional language make it into the mainstream (i.e. I have programmed in imperative languages all of my 28 year career ... nothing has changed). After looking at various FPL code bases, I really believe taht OCaml has a shot assuming we all take the challenge seriously (I have been in American industry for 26 years ... which sadly is far too pragmatic and conservative to change). Regards, Vasili --- Matt Gushee <mgushee@havenrock.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 04:19:05PM -0800, Vasili > Galchin wrote: > > > > and so, those of us who have created bindings > for > > > other Posix functions > > > should > > > try to work with them to get our code merged. > This > > Eric, it sounds to me that you and I are on > the > > same page, i.e. in total agreement. What prompted > my > > posting is that I feel a tad frustrated when I > read > > code that I believe is very good (e.g. Georgi's > ipv6 > > socket code where he split socket stuff out from > > unix.ml by itself making readibility much better > and > > esaier multiple people to work and not having big > > merge problems) and I hear about other code. In > both > > cases, these new code seems to have been sitting > > around and not code reviewed and put into CVS, > where > > it should be. Also there is a danger of some > > divergence because someone will use some of this > > non-checked in code and it becomes defacto > standard. > > So, OCaml community, how do we move forward to get > > this new processed and potentially merged into the > > mainline. > > (Sorry about the grandiose title. I have nothing > suitably profound to > say ... just couldn't think of a better way to > express the subject.) > > I wonder if it is possible to persuade INRIA to do > anything. > > I have no inside information on the process at > INRIA, but my impression > from reading this list over the past year or so is: > > 1) The OCaml team at INRIA care about the > community, but there are too > few of them to meet all our needs, and I suppose > their work is also > subject to institutional pressures that we are > only vaguely aware > of. Maybe they are struggling to keep enough > resources for OCaml > work. > > 2) INRIA as an institution finds it convenient to > release OCaml as open > source, but doesn't really care about the > community. They benignly > neglect everything that doesn't relate to their > research goals. > > 3) OCaml-as-project (i.e. I'm talking about how > OCaml is developed, not > what it is) is a fragile enterprise. E.g., one > developer leaves, and > the future of Camlp4 becomes uncertain. Not > good. > > I'm not saying you should give up hope just yet, but > maybe it's time to > consider alternatives. > > What if there were an "OCaml Community Library > Project"--a group outside > INRIA that would take responsibility for extending > and perhaps partially > replacing the standard library--maybe a bit like the > current ExtLib > project, only more extensive (BTW, why are there two > ExtLibs?? One of > you change the name, please! Thank you.). Maybe if > that project showed > itself to be responsible, credible, reliable, etc. > etc., after a while > it could become the de facto standard library. > > The idealistic scenario is a division of labor > wherein INRIA continues > to develop the parts of OCaml that are interesting > to them, while other > parts (of more interest to those of us working to > create practical > and/or commercial software) would be taken over by > the community. > > I can't say whether this idea is feasible, or > whether INRIA would be > willing to go along with it, but maybe it's > something to consider. > > -- > Matt Gushee When a nation follows > the Way, > Englewood, Colorado, USA Horses bear manure > through > mgushee@havenrock.com its fields; > http://www.havenrock.com/ When a nation ignores > the Way, > Horses bear soldiers > through > its streets. > > --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, > trans.) > > ------------------- > 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 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ------------------- 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