Browse thread
Estimating the size of the ocaml community
-
Yaron Minsky
-
Christopher A. Watford
-
Frédéric_Gava
-
skaller
-
Erik de Castro Lopo
- Olivier_Pérès
-
Thomas Fischbacher
-
Frédéric_Gava
-
Thomas Fischbacher
- Paul Snively
- josh
- Richard Jones
-
Jon Harrop
-
Michael Walter
-
Jon Harrop
- Damien Doligez
- Thomas Fischbacher
- Michael Walter
-
Radu Grigore
- Gerd Stolpmann
- Jon
-
Jon Harrop
- Thomas Fischbacher
- Richard Jones
-
Michael Walter
- Ville-Pertti Keinonen
- Oliver Bandel
- Basile STARYNKEVITCH
-
Thomas Fischbacher
- ronniec95@l...
- skaller
- chris.danx
-
Frédéric_Gava
-
Erik de Castro Lopo
- sejourne_kevin
- Stefano Zacchiroli
-
skaller
-
Frédéric_Gava
- Kenneth Knowles
- Michael Jeffrey Tucker
- Richard Jones
- Nicolas Cannasse
- Evan Martin
- Eric Stokes
- chris.danx
- Sylvain LE GALL
- sejourne_kevin
- Sven Luther
- Johann Spies
-
Christopher A. Watford
[
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: | 2005-02-03 (20:06) |
From: | skaller <skaller@u...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Estimating the size of the ocaml community |
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 05:06, Thomas Fischbacher wrote: > Anyway, this leaves us with a very interesting question: how many people > actually do believe in the value of Ocaml? I, for myself, use it whenever > it is the most appropriate tool for a job (usually, when portability is > an issue). This is sometimes the case, but more often than not, LISP > turned out to be a better choice for what I do. Well .. [skaller@pelican] ~/links/flx/src>wc *.ml 89737 342248 3223570 total 90K Camls here speak for themselves .. Ocaml has four downsides from my viewpoint: (a) interfacing to C isn't trivial (b) native code compiler on x86 can't make a shared library To a large extent these two factors are not only the reason for those 90K lines (which implement a compiler) but also the reason I'll probably have to bootstrap the compiler away from Ocaml. (c) the Cathedral+Bazaar development model of the language, about which I have mixed feelings. This seems to be good for the core compiler, but gets in the way of improving the other tools and the library. (d) Not many Open Source developers know Ocaml, so it is hard to get help on Open Source projects However none of these factors relate to Ocaml as a *language* on its own, they're all industrial concerns. I also use C/C++ (for C/C++ compatibility -- lol!) and Python (for rapid development/scripting). Felix aims to replace all of them (high performance functional and procedural code with rapid prototyping/scripting harness and C/C++ compatibility), but I wouldn't dream of building it without a high level language such as Ocaml as the bootstrap. So apart from being the build tool for the current version, Ocaml is also the principle inspiration for the design, which is another 'value' of Ocaml that should not be discounted, and in keeping with its role as a combined academic/research and industrial language. Other languages (JoCaml, C/XDuce .. many more see the Humps) would also credit Ocaml not only as the build tool, but also a key source of inspiration, and many use the Ocaml runtime even though the source language is distinct. On the flip side, a huge industrial user base might be a signicant impediment to improvements to Ocaml -- at present the INRIA team can assume a client base fairly receptive to changes and willing to give the implementors considerably latitude in many areas. -- 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