From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id NAA16674; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:19:00 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA22483 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:18:59 +0100 (MET) Received: from c0mailgw05.prontomail.com ([216.163.180.10]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id fADCIw522970 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:18:58 +0100 (MET) Received: by c0mailgw05.prontomail.com (NPlex 5.5.029) id 3BEE4C0E000685D3 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 04:12:07 -0800 Received: from 207.1.194.208 by SmtpServer for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:12:06 +0000 X-Sender: 29538.starband.net Message-ID: <006601c16c3d$214c06c0$0401a8c0@XENO> Reply-To: "Eric Newhuis" From: "Eric Newhuis" To: "Caml" References: <001e01c1675c$a4b3e630$0401a8c0@XENO> Subject: Receptive Tool Vendors (was: Re: [Caml-list] Jihad) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:17:14 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > Have you found tool vendors outside of the USA more receptive / > perceptive? Not directly. However I have, on occasion, encountered people from the UK who know ML and have preached its virtues. I only assumed that there must have been some form of support outside the classrooms and research labs. Am I wrong? What is the current state of functional programming language acceptance? I used to preach Lisp for no apparent reason. I know that Lisp has enjoyed some commercial success, perhaps for those who have refused to relinquish who now find themselves solving commercial problems. After learning about ML and Caml I doubt that I will ever preach Lisp again. I wouldn't have known any better if I hadn't collected years of personal observations on the (potential) safety provided by languages like C++ and Caml. Caml provides a much stronger safety of primitives than C++. I believe higher-level safety is also important: Avoid Primitive Obsession and construct useful classes that encapsulate basic domain concepts. This is a good form of safety that is even possible in weakly typed languages. Why am I venturing here in response to your question? Well I think there are a lot of good techniques that programmers consistently ignore because they are creatures of habit. So we don't have a lot of developers screaming for better type safety here in the USA. And I'll bet this is true worldwide since USA tool vendors have an influence on the world, no? I recall reading "After the Gold Rush" in which the author urges us to move toward more professional software engineering practices. I firmly believe that languages like Caml can play a role in that. It is precisely the X-behavior of weakly typed languages that leads one to believe that programming is still more of a "black art" or a . I say those developers are simply too lazy or too lame to undertake the higher task that is deserving of the title of "Professional Engineer". (This is what I was referring to in my first email about the "true professional".) Interviewer: "Yes Mr. NASA engineer, just how did you get that robot to land on Mars and take pictures?" NASA Engineer: "Oh that? We don't know. We have a number of magicians working for us and they refuse to reveal their secrets." Hogwash! True; no language is a silver bullet. We need a combination of fail-safe mechanisms, good engineering practices, and technical management and process optimization. (I must sound like an SEI pundit.) I think Caml can be one piece of a much larger puzzle. Tool vendors who sell this higher cause and demonstrate how it can save money by producing more intentionally error-free software will, perhaps, have an edge over the competition. But the sales pitch needs to also educate software developers in best engineering practices. And I don't necessarily mean UML diagrams, but more practical things like SOME of those practices suggested by the Extreme Programming crowd, the Refactoring book, NASA's SEL, and IBM's software lifecycle management research. Failure to instruct in all these areas will diminish the understanding that a language like Ocaml is a good thing. ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr