English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[Caml-list] The Caml morale crasher #1
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2005-09-07 (18:13)
From: Damien Guichard <alphablock@w...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The Caml morale crasher #1


Thanks for encouragements.

Indeed OCaml is all about lambdas, any OCaml function is a named-lambda.
OCaml without lambda-calculus is just impossible.
Another adjective for OCaml was "esoteric" and another about Milner type
system was "over the top feature".

I think the only possible answer is to deliver, the functionality overcomes
the resistance.
The first language that delivers has great chances to become the standard.
People that fear OCaml can deliver faster just prove OCaml is better.

- damien

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Gushee" <mgushee@havenrock.com>
To: <caml-list@inria.fr>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The Caml morale crasher #1

> Damien Guichard wrote:
> > http://www.bytesmiths.com/Publications/9701ArchitectsVersusCoders.html
> Unfortunately, I couldn't connect with this site, but I will venture a
> comment anyway. Since I know nothing about your project, I can only
> respond in the most general terms.
> > When annoucing an OCaml project on a public forum i have been advised to
> > renunce lambdas because it would impede translation to "a less obscure,
> > more popular language".
> And I imagine the same people who said that would also advise you not to
> use higher-order functions and variant types. Just sacrifice some of
> OCaml's most powerful features for the sake of compatibility ... or
> perhaps we should say (social) conformity. It might be a useful tactic
> in some specific cases, but as a general principle, if you're going to
> do that, why bother with OCaml at all?
> Let's assume you had good reasons for choosing OCaml (people who use
> non-mainstream languages usually do). The question then is whether there
> is any practical need for the members of that forum to accept your
> methods. If so, then try again to make your case ... I'm sure there are
> people here who can suggest some "talking points." Otherwise, well,
> innovation has always met with resistance, and probably always will.
> Have confidence in your choices and forge ahead. Or give up. It's your
> choice.
> Best of luck with your project.
> --
> Matt Gushee
> Englewood, CO, USA
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs