Re: When functional languages can be accepted by industry?

From: William Chesters (williamc@dai.ed.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Apr 13 2000 - 18:00:23 MET DST

  • Next message: Julian Assange: "Re: When functional languages can be accepted by industry?"

    jean-marc alliot writes:
    > I don't think that CAML needs anything more to be accepted by industry,
    > from a technical point of view.

    > Moreover, the CAML team is certainly one of the most brilliant and
    > efficient development team I have dealt with.

    Steve Stevenson writes:
    > \item Unstable compilers for Sisal*: This is a very legitimate
    > argument.
    >
    > \item The programming model did have some serious weaknesses.
    > Foremost was I/O. The whole concept of streams was included to
    > have some way of doing I/O, but it was an awkward hack at best.

       I don't think it can be emphasised too often that some functional
    languages (ocaml perhaps chief among them) are of *extremely* high
    quality when it comes to the bread and butter usability issues which
    concern real-world developers.

       ocaml's compiler/runtime are 99% solid, as reliable as any
    commercial system I've worked with. The I/O and other libraries are
    splendidly down-to-earth and effective. The documentation is helpful
    and mercifully concise.

       Criticism of the "functional" idiom per se simply misses the point,
    since ocaml supports imperative data structures very well (the only
    possible niggle being the "write" overhead associated with the
    generational GC, but that's only an issue for certain kinds of inner
    loop, and only in comparison with C/C++).

       (All this is a consequence of the skill and hard work of the ocaml
    team---and the rightness of their vision of how the pretty ideas
    floating around functional languages could best be exploited in a
    practical system.)

       So there is no need to look inwards at ocaml, and the handful of
    other good and well-implemented minority languages out there, for an
    answer to the question of why industry hasn't accepted them on a wide
    scale. Just look outwards to industry itself. To get Java accepted
    required an extremely singular event, namely the rise of the 'net and
    Sun's agreement with Netscape; without that kind of earthquake, you
    are in a chicken and egg situation. E.g. I love ocaml and appreciate
    its advantages vis-a-vis Java and C++ very well, but I can't foist it
    on my colleagues for lots of good reasons to do with its current
    (relatively) narrow user base: customer credibility, second-sourcing
    for maintenance, learning curve, ...

       But look, the industry is very big, and there is room for minority
    languages to live quite nicely at the "margins" where chicken/egg
    isn't such a big problem---and maybe one day emerge and achieve world
    domination ;).



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 14 2000 - 20:06:04 MET DST