On 07 Apr 2004, at 16:03, Vasili Galchin wrote:
>
>    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 think it would be ever so convenient for industry if the scientists 
would stop hoarding all the perfectly good technology solutions in 
their palatial research laboratories where industry has absolutely no 
control over their development.  If the scientists were only a little 
more accommodating, then industry wouldn't have to use all those 
terrible alternative technologies they've been saddled with all these 
years.  It's so unfair.  </sarcasm>

> 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.

It wouldn't be the first time a language forked because of diverging 
interests between researchers and commercial interests.  Perhaps there 
is nothing really new under the sun.

Seriously, and I'm trying to be helpful here, it is not the scientists 
who decide what is useful to industry.  It is industry that decides 
what are the useful applications of research.  If industry wants a 
standard definition of a language system with all the features of 
Ocaml, then industry will make one.


-- 
j h woodyatt <jhw@wetware.com>
markets are only free to the people who own them.

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