Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Re: OCaml is broken
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Jacques Carette <carette@m...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] general question, was Re: OCaml is broken
I agree with most of what Dario Teixeira wrote, except for one small 

Dario Teixeira wrote:
> Last but not least, Ocaml plays a central role in multiple INRIA
> projects, which means its creators have all the reason to continue
> maintaining it and improving it for the foreseeable future (and there's
> some interesting goodies in the upcoming 3.12 release, for example).
Actually, this gives these projects an incentive to insure that Ocaml 
survives, which gives an incentive for some 'maintenance engineers' to 
be kept on-staff to insure that Ocaml does not bit-rot.  This gives only 
quite partial incentive to a team of researchers (the creators of Ocaml) 
to do maintenance (as that is usually not research, thus not the kind of 
work of interest to researchers).  And entropy is a real problem -- 
Ocaml is now quite mature, which means that radical changes are well 
nigh impossible; this is a serious disincentive for researchers.  End of 

Personally, I would really really want to see a 4.00 release which 
really warrants that name.  The 3.XX line can be maintained for a few 
more years while people switch, in the same way gcc did this. 

In any case, I have nevertheless voted with my time and effort: I have 1 
large project being implemented in Ocaml, 3 medium ones in metaocaml, 
although I must admit that I have some 'research' code in Haskell (and 
in Maple, but that's another story).