I think the issue between Java and O'CaML is not primarily a question of language. Both Java and O'CaML have their strengths and weaknesses.
Actually, the Sun Java compiler is still buggy at this point. So what makes it so popular? The standard APIs and libraries. While O'CaML standard APIs and libraries are focused on data structures -- with very effective implementations --, java has put focus on other domains which seem to have more success.
The java 2 APIs contain stuff to handle windows, overall GUI look-and-feel, drag-and-drop, en/decryption, databases, remote method invocation, complex 2D graphics, and finally data structures. If you want to do all that with O'CaML, you have to bolt everything on it yourself, find every library binding if they exist...
One problem is that with O'CaML, it does take some time to get you started and find the right options to invoke to compile your code with custom libraries support. On the other hand, with java you state a few "imports" and it's over. Examples in the documentation are numerous, too.
But also, there is a huge difference between standard libraries and library bindings. Standard APIs are written independently of existing libraries; library bindings often provide a mere translation of functions that has been initially written for C. Also, documentation is kept in separate files and compiling a working executable is much more difficult.
I see a definite advantage that O'CaML could take in development of standard APIs (at least APIs!) covering the needs of the industry identified by Java's success. The later development of those libraries, starting from APIs, potentially using other graphic libraries, could more easily be implemented by O'CaML users...
But certainly, the primary problem will be human resources then...
Best regards,
Benoît de Boursetty.
----- La messagerie itinérante sans abonnement NetCourrier -----
Web : www.netcourrier.com Minitel : 3615 et 3623 NETCOURRIER
Tél : 08 36 69 00 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 19 2000 - 15:02:27 MET DST