English version
Accueil     Ŕ propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

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

Browse thread
If OCaml were a car
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2007-08-21 (09:51)
From: Oliver Bandel <oliver@f...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] If OCaml were a car
Zitat von skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>:

> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 21:54 +0200, Oliver Bandel wrote:
> > Compared to that the discussions on OCaml's defficiencies are
> > incomprehensible to me.
> Unfortunately not so. The syntax is only a minor issue IMHO.
> There are a number of other annoyances. But the major issues are:
> (1.a) lack of dynamic loading (of native code)
>     -- hopefully to be fixed in 3.11

Would be fine, but is not that necessary.

> (1.b) lack of multi-processing

You mean parallelization on many processors?

Well, Unix.fork could help, or OCamlP3l.

> (2.a) interoperability
>     -- with C libraries
>     -- with .NET libraries (F# isn't Ocaml)

What do you mean with interoperability here?
You have the possibility to marry C and OCaml,
and it's relatively easy, compared to Perl
for example (which is very ugly with that XS-stuff).

> (2.b) refusal of Inria team to provide a more complete library

I do not really miss a lot in the library.
Some more functions would be fine, but the missings
are not so big, IMHO.
People could add some items in the bug-database as feature wishes.
If the wishes make sense, I think, they possibly will be implemented.

But it does not make sense to ask for a complete rewrite.
It takes too much time, does not bring so much advantages
and stops them working at other things.
So, if some really necessary things should be added,
a feature-wish would make sense IMHO.
And that must be concrete saying, what and why it is missed.
Not something like "rewrite the lib, it misses so much".

> (3) lack of ISO or ECMA standardisation

That would be fine, yes.

> We who use Ocaml are patient (fixes 1),
> creative (fixes 2), and trusting (fixes 3),
> which are three properties industry does not have.

Does Perl have an ISO-standard?
Or the ugly Visual Basic, which some big companies
really are using?

I think an ISO-standard could be fine, but it is not
the criteria, why companies decide to use a language.

IMHO, many (most) things that are used in industry are really bad
things. And people insist on using bad langauges and bad systems,
because they are accustomed to it, and some Lobbyists
sell that stuff.

But also, because certain tools will only be deklivered on
certain systems (thoose ugly things). (But this I can understand
as a reason, because somehow the work must be done.)