Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
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: 2004-04-07 (23:03)
From: Vasili Galchin <vasiliocaml@y...>
Subject: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library)

   You misunderstood my point. I was saying that if
OCaml and other nice declarative languages like it
don't stop being science projects then all we in
industry have for alternatives are terrible languages
like C++! I wasn't in anyway suggesting a process that
has been adopted for C++. Instead I was merely
suggesting (prodding) for everybody to get off the
dime and see code somehow make it through a gatekeeper
and into the mainstream. 

Regards, Vasili

--- skaller <> wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 14:20, Vasili Galchin wrote:
> > Bottom line: there are a lot of
> > valuable contributions to OCaml that should be
> code
> > reviewed and if good checked-in! Alternative: C++,
> > i.e.  sh*t!
> C++ has a formal ISO review process plus a community
> based development site (Boost), and other media (eg
> The code is free for any use, the specifications are
> not 
> but they're cheap (thanks mainly to the USA national
> standards body).
> Caml has a different development model, and one can 
> imagine a reluctance to move it closer to the C++
> model for fear the result might be similar ..
> -- 
> John Skaller,
> voice: 061-2-9660-0850, 
> snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia
> Checkout the Felix programming language

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: