Re: When functional languages can be accepted by industry?

From: Michael Hohn (hohn@math.utah.edu)
Date: Fri Apr 21 2000 - 22:53:41 MET DST

  • Next message: Gerd Stolpmann: "Re: When functional languages can be accepted by industry?"

    >> ...
    >> > Vitaly Lugovsky wrote:
    >> > >
    >> > > P.S. Maybe, all that we need, is a RAD tool for ocaml? It can
    >> > > look like a better module finder ("module name" -> "file name" is not
    >> > > a good idea. Paths in Java is much better), and a lot of reusable
    >> > > modules for common tasks (database, GUI)...
    >>
    >> There are two different problems with RADs
    >>
    >> * making one requires lots of work, and is not necessarily very
    >> rewarding for the author, who himself can probably work
    >> without. That's the reason you don't find many RADs in the open
    >> source community.
    >> You can find an embryo of such a thing in lablgtk for instance, but
    >> I have no idea whether it will become really a full fledge RAD some
    >> day.
    >>
    >> * it is not so clear how useful it would be for a language like ocaml.
    >> Code in ocaml is much more compact than in C++ or JAVA, so that code
    >> generation is not so useful in itself. I agree that this might be
    >> nice for beginners, but if it is nice for beginners only, then it's
    >> even harder to find the workforce.
    >> ...

    There are some other problems:
    * RADs usually support just one language, maybe two. But when a
    project consists of combinations of sh, Python, Maple or Mathematica,
    ocaml, C/C++ and some Tcl/Tk code, Makefiles are the way to go.
    * RADs are not programmable. Makefiles can be generated.

    >> ...
    >>
    >> > There already is one: the lablbrowser. It's quite
    >> > good functionally -- but the interface sucks.
    >>
    >> Name has changed, it is now ocamlbrowser.
    >> As Vitaly answered, this is not a RAD, but more a kind of IDE, more
    >> centered on library browsing than project building.
    >>
    >> As always I admire how constructive your comments are :-)
    >>
    >> The interface is that way because I like it that way:
    >> * the main functionality is in one small window that I can keep on my
    >> screen all the time.
    >> * there is one window by module, because I often want to browse
    >> several modules simultaneously.
    >> * editor functionality is reduced to a minimum, because real
    >> programmers use emacs anyway.
    >>
    >> ...

    I agree. Using lablbrowser was quite pleasant, and there are no
    annoying frills to get in the way.

    Cheers,
            Michael



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 25 2000 - 19:05:22 MET DST