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
Interactive technical computing
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2007-03-08 (03:00)
From: Jim Miller <gordon.j.miller@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Interactive technical computing
I have no doubt that nobody would give you a grant do to this.  The
immediate question my sources would ask is "WHY?" when there are so many
other languages out there.  The number of research scientists that I know of
that are asking for anything like this is exceedingly low.

On a side note, this is the most frustrating thing about the physics
community I work with.  I'm involved at GMU in the COMPUTATIONAL physics
department. We are supposed to be applying cutting edge technology to
problems and yet the application of new languages gets VERY little traction
there.  Every argument I've ever made to the faculty there about the ability
for an O'Caml type language to improve our productivity and confidence in
the answers it produces tends to fall on deaf ears.

Of course, I am just a student there, but I'm also an experienced (15 years)
professional programmer that might know a thing or two about programming ...

Most research physicists that I work with (NRL in particular) are worse.

On 3/7/07, skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 20:49 -0500, Jim Miller wrote:
> > I think that this would be a potentially fantastic application!
> The question is whether you would get a sufficient grant to
> actually pay for it.
> --
> John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
> Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net