John,

   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 <skaller@users.sourceforge.net> 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
> USENET).
> 
> 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, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net
> voice: 061-2-9660-0850, 
> snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia
> Checkout the Felix programming language
> http://felix.sf.net
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

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