Mailing list for all users of the OCaml language and system.
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity
@ 2003-03-14 22:14 Daniel M. Albro
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread
From: Daniel M. Albro @ 2003-03-14 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: caml-list


	Someone (sorry, deleted the email before I could use it to
respond) mentioned that they had thought that the first edition of
SICP used Lisp (this isn't true, by the way -- I used the first
edition when I took 6.001 way back when and it was Scheme).  Maybe
you were thinking of _The_Little_Lisper_, which has since changed
to _The_Little_Schemer_ (with the sequel _The_Seasoned_Schemer_).
That book is a pretty good introduction to functional programming,
by the way, albeit a bit mind-bending when it starts going into
Y-Combinators and stuff like that.  I still haven't managed to finish
_The_Seasoned_Schemer_.  They have a book called "_The_Little_MLer_"
that talks about ML and has a section on how to convert their code
into OCaml, but it's not really as good as the Scheme version; it
spends too much time on the specifics of ML, really.  Maybe that's
appropriate, but then it should be longer so they can get all of the
nice lambda calculus in.

-- 
Daniel M. Albro <albro@humnet.ucla.edu>

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity
@ 2003-03-15 16:27 Oliver Bandel
  2003-03-15 17:55 ` Sergey Goldgaber
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Bandel @ 2003-03-15 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: caml-list

On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 07:43:53PM -0600, Tushar Samant wrote:
> 02003-03-11 | Pierre Weis <pierre.weis@inria.fr> writes:
> > have to learn it. This may be the main drawback of Objective Caml:
> > there is no ``Objective Caml for dummies''. That may be the price to
> 
> Well said. I have had haphazard formal training in programming,
> and until I arrived at the idea of informally reasoning out type
> inference I essentially could not go beyond print_string(). This
> is a type of thing which can go in "Ocaml for Dummies". As another
> example, take type constructors. Here is their first occurrence in
> the proposed O'Reilly book:
> 
>   In contrast with tuples or records, which correspond to a Cartesian
>   product, the declaration of a sum type corresponds to a union of sets.
>   Different types (for example integers or character strings) are gathered
>   into a single type. The various members of the sum are distinguished by
>   -constructors-, which support on the one hand, as their name indicates,
>   construction of values of this type and on the other hand, thanks to
>   pattern matching, access to the components of these values. To apply
>   a constructor to an argument is to indicate that the value returned
>   belongs to this new type.
> 
> A programmer who is constantly asked to parse xml, make database
> queries etc at work is not going to be sympathetic to this.

Well, maybe it's better that he is not. :)

> And
> no considerations of why other ways of doing it lead to a stronger
> or weaker system are going to sway him. But a Dummies book, hand-
> waving a constructor away as a flag or label, might. The third and
> last example is the introduction of structures in the reference manual:
> 
>   A primary motivation for modules is to package together related
>   definitions (such as the definitions of a data type and associated
>   operations over that type) and enforce a consistent naming scheme
>   for these definitions. This avoids running out of names or acci-
>   dentally confusing names. Such a package is called a -structure-
>   and is introduced by the struct...end construct, which contains
>   an arbitrary sequence of definitions. The structure is usually
>   given a name with the module binding.


Well, I don't think it's a good idea to throw such (imho hard) stuff
away. A better presentation will be a way to go.

I'm happy to have books like the O'Reilley-book (even if it
sometimes sounds different, when I criticize it). They use
the language, which is necessary to explain something.
But it sometimes (or often) could be more well explained to
peiople who are not so familiar with this sort of thinking.

It's IMHO not a problem that there is to learn a lot.
The only problem IMHO is, if there are no texts and/or people,
who I can ask to go further.

When things are complicated,and different and unknown, then
it is not a good idea to oversimplify.
It's better, when explaining the complicated/new/unknown
in more detail.

So I had found some papers, not all covering my knowledge-level,
but each of them is interesting (some has helped me, others
may will help me later, when I have more experience/knowledge in
the FP-area).

These texts I have found:

 - The documentation, coming with OCaml (Reference != learning papers)
 - Tutorial: stephan.html (very good intro to start first steps!)
 - Caml quick reference guide (good idea, but layout could be better)
 - An introductional text, which has helped me a lot before the OCaml
   book in english was put on the server. I don't know who has written
   it, because the author has not written his name/mailaddres into it.
   The first two sentences in this paper: "This documentation is an
   introduction to ML programming, specifically for the OCaml
   implementation. In CS134a, we used C (and variations) to specify
   processes, monitors, semaphores, devices and more." (and so on)
   (Could be better, with a table of content and an index; but to start
   it's much better than the O'Reilley book, because of a lot of
   examples.)
   
 - O'Reilley-OCaml-book (good for gaining an overview on the language)

 - Didier Remy: Using, Understanding, and Unraveling The OCaml Language
   (Sometimes I understand some paragraphs. Good work, but is more
    a paper for the OCaml-gurus with theoretical background, but
    neverheless interesting and some example code is used there too.)
    If there are books, explaining how to go from imperative
    non-computer-studied person to a person who understands this
    text fully, please let me know...


There are a lot of papers, but there are too much gaps between
the one knowledge (and it's representation) and the other.
Filling the gaps would be a way, nut dumbing down!

Ciao,
   Oliver

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* [oliver: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity]
@ 2003-03-13 14:39 Oliver Bandel
  2003-03-13 16:35 ` [Caml-list] OCaml popularity Michael Schuerig
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Bandel @ 2003-03-13 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: caml-list

----- Forwarded message from oliver -----

To: Michael Schuerig <schuerig@acm.org>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:34:16AM +0100, Michael Schuerig wrote:
> On Thursday 13 March 2003 00:53, Oliver Bandel wrote:
> 
> [misadventure with Tk]
> > But: I found out that this terrible OO-stuff is - again -
> > a horror!
> 
> Are you sure the problem was with the OO part? It's hard to assess this, 
[...]

OK, thanks for the links, I will browse them.

But nevertheless I'm looking for OCaml-like solutions.
And the Tk-stuff looks weird to me.


> > (I have seen mess in Tcl/Tk-programming as well as
> >  in OO-stuff for other applications (that was Java-stuff),
> >  at least if the objects were splitted into too small
> >  pieces (design-question; OO-gurus may tell you more abot this
> >  problem)).
> 
> No guru here, but someone who thinks it's a good idea to split things 
> into individual pieces that each do a single thing and can be tested 
> separately.

Yes, you even can write parsers in OO, and there are
Design Patterns for it.

But functional programming makes more sense to me here.

Well, in GUIs there OO does makes sense.
But using a more functional approach might help here too.


> 
> 
> > If there would be a more FP-like approach to GUI-programming
> > - and that is what you have mentioned above with "what OCaml
> > can contribute to GUI-programming" - then this would help
> > a lot.
> 
> [GUI ideas snipped]
> 
> You're mostly dealing with the (comparatively) easy part: visual 
> appearance. The hard part is setting things in motion: Reacting to user 
> inputs and actions.
> Displaying data consistently (even after changes 
> done in another place).

I added this too.

There are functions which are bind to each
appearence of a GUI-object.

Look at the <function_call arg>
stuff.

When I can't express how it has to look like
to match my needs, then the reason is, that even
well-experienced FP/OOP/IP-people have there no
functional solution.

If I had one, I would not ask for it while explaining,
what I'm looking for. If I would know how to solve it,
I had written a solution or a paper about such a project.


Well, what I have written in my examples looks more like
an aequivalent to tools like lex/yacc are and maybe could be called
guilex/guiyacc.


> 
> There are broadly tested and published ways of dealing with GUIs in the 
> OO way. MVC, which I already mentioned, is the arch-pattern in this 
> regard. Common OO languages help, as the idea of reactive objects that 
> handle messages is natural to them.


Yes, that is the problem with OO: sometimes problems are bloating
up, when splitting up problems into objects.

For GUIs OO might be a good choice; but as long as it is
not tested that FP doesn't help here, I will insist on
such a solution.


> 
> I've only had very little exposure to purely-functional UIs. Several 
> years ago I looked into how GUIs are done in Clean. It was interesting, 
> possibly mind-expanding -- but, at least to me, far from intuitive.

There is at least one GUI-approach with Haskell.
Looked very clean and good, but needs Haskell-experience
(and Monads-stuff). So I have this in mind, and maybe
come back later to this.

There was no object-mess.



[...]
> [Typical database + GUI enterprise applications]
> > > Could OCaml in this area bring such a big improvement
> > > over, say, Java and J2EE?
> >
> > See above.
> 
> No, unfortunately not. You speculate a lot, but don't provide any usable 
> solutions.

When there are hundreds of FP-programmers do not offer solutions
(not counted the one haskell-approach),
and many-thousands of OO-programmers are throwing around their
OO-mess, how should I (not computer science studied; have studied
electrical engeneering) provide a solution?

When looking at the code, I know what's good and wrong, even
if I'm not able to find the correct words in computer-science
terms. (But even 95% of those computer studied people would
not be able to do that; and worse: they would not be able
to see the difference in the code.)

Writing in FP is like having functions, that behave
determined; when looking at OO-stuff, it looks like
a stochastical process.

Well I like stochastics-stuff, and markov modells
are nice. :) But there is a difference, when I want
to program. Then I like it non-stochastical.
And that's the reason, why I like that FP-stuff.
It's not dividing things apart, which should be handled
as a whole.



> Not that you're required to, of course. But current OO 
> languages do have proven ways of dealing with the problems you've 
> encountered.

OK, I will look at your links.


[...]
> > > Or are there other -- niche? -- areas where
> > > the advantages OCaml provides are far more important?
> >
> > There are many areas, where OCaml could be important.
> 
> Being important is an interesting property in a research context. It 
> doesn't make a language popular.

I'm now a t a point, where the popularity is not so much a matter
to me. I want to learn and to use that language.
If other people want not, it's their problem.

Maybe with the right marketing/communication, you also can
write OCaml-programs and sell them.
And I'm not part of a team. I work as a one-person-team.
So I have not disadvantagesm, but advantages, when I use
OCaml, and others not. :)



> The practically interesting areas are 
> those, where OCaml provides a significant advantage over other 
> languages.

It does provide significant advantages, as I recently
found out even in comparing with Perl - and I used
Str-module in the OCaml-part and Perl on the other side.

The OCaml-stuff was clearer in code and faster developed.

If you had asked me this in the beginnings of my OCaml-
journey, I would have said (and I had said that), that
I think, that OCaml might be good for larger projects,
but not for scrippting.

But even there it is better!

It provides significant adcantage(s) and that makes
the language important (to me).



> These may well be areas deserving of the moniker "difficult 
> computing" (as quoted by Xavier in this thread). As a case in point, I 
> remember Markus Mottl explaining recently in comp.lang.functional ("AI 
> and functional programming") why he chose OCaml.

Thanks for that hint.
I will read his articles.

(But I don't think that he will apologize OO there... well let's look.)

Ciao,
   Oliver

----- End forwarded message -----

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity
@ 2003-03-13  7:09 Daniel M. Albro
  2003-03-13 16:48 ` Neel Krishnaswami
  2003-03-13 21:29 ` Karl Zilles
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 57+ messages in thread
From: Daniel M. Albro @ 2003-03-13  7:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: caml-list


	I thought I might comment a bit on this thread as a recent
learner of OCaml, which I've finally managed to learn at least well
enough to write a nice (in my opinion) MCFG (multiple
context free grammar) chart parser in it.  I don't think the language is
inherently any more difficult to learn than any other (well, maybe
difficult to learn ALL of), but for non-French speakers the lack of
introductory material is a problem.  I tried off and on (mostly
off) to learn the language for a year or two before getting it, and
the thing that allowed me to easily learn the language was the
recent translation of the O'Reilly book into English.  If they
ever publish the thing in English (I guess there's no agreement to
do so), I think the language will begin to take off outside of
France, because of what I think is the language's natural nitch -- it's
a rapid prototyping language (by which I just mean that it's a very high
level language and takes care of garbage collecting, etc.) that produces
fast code.  Lots of recent converts have been brought in
for that very reason, mostly by Doug Bagley's language comparison
page.

	Of course there are areas where the language or its development
environment might be improved, and hopefully this would help with
the popularity problem -- the debugger is rather nonintuitive and could
use random extra features; I've found it a bit difficult to work with. 
I also hope that the stream parsing [< >] syntax stuff will get put back
into the main language and made parseable by ocamldep, that the
imperative side of the language will get fleshed out a bit with some
expanded loop features like break statements, and that someone will do a
wxWindows port.  But these are minor points.  The main thing is to
keep pushing at the compiled code speed, availability of nice
libraries, and good development environment that the language already
has.  Oh, and to advertise them!

-- 
Daniel M. Albro <albro@humnet.ucla.edu>

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* [oliver: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity]
@ 2003-03-12 23:53 Oliver Bandel
  2003-03-13  1:34 ` [Caml-list] OCaml popularity Michael Schuerig
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 57+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Bandel @ 2003-03-12 23:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: caml-list

Well, forgotten the List.


Was there a reply-to?

Normally the message goes to the list...
well... anoying...


Ciao,
    Oliver


----- Forwarded message from oliver -----

To: Michael Schuerig <schuerig@acm.org>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 11:34:34PM +0100, Michael Schuerig wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 March 2003 19:08, Alwyn Goodloe wrote:
> >  I agree. This is really the difference between what most people do
> > in industry and what we do in academia. People out there just don't
> > care about how well you can build an automated theorem prover if they
> > can't draw their GUI screens and access their Oracle data bases.
> 
> Is software development in industry only about GUI screens, web pages 
> and database access?

YES!

> Well, from my own experience, I fear the answer is 
> mostly yes.


...hmhhh... I hoped for a different statement. :(


> That being as it is, would things in industry be that much 
> better if OCaml had everything it takes for writing enterprise 
> applications?


Well, some days ago I recently found out, that I once
had tried to play around with Ocaml and it's tk-binding.
Well, I've forgotten that experiments (I like CLI :))
and explored them again.

And it's relativley few lines of code for that functionality
(well, maybe Tcl has vewer lines in this special task, I think,
but I have not compared it with tcl-scripts).

But: I found out that this terrible OO-stuff is - again -
a horror!

Each little detail needs it's own object and message.
This is terrible.

Maybe it is possible to set global parameters for the Tk-
variables, like style-sheets or something like this
(I think in Tcl/TK it was possible to set such default-values).

But if not thinking abot this, I have seen *again* that
OO-stryle of programming yields to a cluttered code,
at least when using it for setting Tk-GUI-parameters.

But maybe there could be a better interface?

I have not explored in detail, if it is the Tk, or
the OO-stuff, that makes the code a mess, but I think,
both approaches are part of the mess!

(I have seen mess in Tcl/Tk-programming as well as
 in OO-stuff for other applications (that was Java-stuff),
 at least if the objects were splitted into too small
 pieces (design-question; OO-gurus may tell you more abot this
 problem)).

If there would be a more FP-like approach to GUI-programming
- and that is what you have mentioned above with "what OCaml
can contribute to GUI-programming" - then this would help
a lot.

Maybe it is possible to put typographic conventions in a
functional form (ask Mr. Knuth, please) and write a function,
that  creates values (e.g. polynomicl stuff? or even only a list
of values?), which can be subsampled from the function (Stream(?))
and setting the GUI-parameters.


So, what is needed for GUI-programming (and where OCaml
could be a good language for) is:

 - global style parameters for the GUI ( hey, that's typography! :) )

 - a function that can describe typographical stuff
    (e.g. how much the size of fonts in "small" depends on the
     base fontsize and os on - again, here Mr. Knuth (or typographers,
     or the people, who had implemented the many TeX-systems)
     could be asked for more details)

 - a good interface to this stuff

 - trees/hashtables/trees-of-hashtables which binds GUI-objects
   to it's *function*s (if a GUI-object would be handled like
   functions in FPLs, then you may use one button as a parameter
   for a menue (or vice versa).... => higher-order /functional)
   GUI-objects; GUI-objects as first-citizens...)

 - powerful tools to handle the GUIs

 - higher-level functions/language for using it, someting like
   Gui.map or so or
   List.map #change_button_properties list_of_buttons_in_right_frame


I'm not clear about what OCaml already have here,
but *all* GUI-code (with labltk) I have seen,
was cluttered like any OO-/TK- stuff.
And that's not, what I'm looking for!


There should be a language like

menu1 - submen1 - subsubmen1a "Open File" open_in <arg1>
                - subsubmen1b "Show File" print_string <read_in_file arg1>
                - subsubmen1c "Close File" close_in <arg1>

      - submen2 - subsubmen2a "No function"  print_string "no function!"
                - subsubmen2b "" raise exception Wrong_key


and this could be added to a declaration of things like:


menu: font=basefont=12pt

submenu: font = smallfont(basefont) (* smallfont is based on
                                      typographical issues...
                                       ... maybe you should replace
                                       "basefont"  here with menu.font
                                       or menu#font (s. comments at
                                       subsubmenue) *)


subsubmenu: font = tinyfont(basefont) (* instead of basefont you
                                         may write menu#font or
                                         in dot-notation menu.font
                                         so that you have automatic
                                         adaption to changes of the
                                         font of the main-menu *)



IMHO, the ocamlp4 and/or ocamllex/ocamlyacc-Gurus
her on this mailinglist could write such stuff
in some weeks or even some days.


Is such a tool would be available (I hope good documented),
I would use it, because I don't want to do that
I-declare-each-button-individually idiots-tasks.




> Could OCaml in this area bring such a big improvement 
> over, say, Java and J2EE?

See above.

If you can handle *many* objects of the gui in a more
functional way, thei would make things easier and really
easy and nice.



> Or are there other -- niche? -- areas where 
> the advantages OCaml provides are far more important?

There are many areas, where OCaml could be important.

But sometimes I ask myself: Well, why are we looking for
the big masses? As other peoples stated here: They
are (almost everyone - but not all) idiots.

But maybe they are idiots, because they need to be, to
get the job and stay in job...


Ciao,
   Oliver

----- End forwarded message -----

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity
@ 2003-03-12 17:40 isaac gouy
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 57+ messages in thread
From: isaac gouy @ 2003-03-12 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: caml-list

Why isn't X more popular?
Why isn't X mainstream?

Such fascinating questions! The many answers often
have as much to do with the specific history of a
language, as they do with language features or design.

Then there's philosophy-
'There are many ways of trying to understand programs.
People often rely too much on one way, which is called
"debugging" and consists of running a
partly-understood program to see if it does what you
expected. Another way, which ML advocates, is to
install some means of understanding in the very
programs themselves.' 
Robin Milner, preface to The Little MLer.

It's the immediate-gratification of getting
"something" to work (and then making it the "right
something") versus the deferred-pleasure of knowing
that you will have a "correct" program.

best wishes, Isaac

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
* [Caml-list] OCaml popularity
@ 2003-03-06 23:27 Graham Guttocks
  2003-03-10 20:43 ` Paul Steckler
                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 57+ messages in thread
From: Graham Guttocks @ 2003-03-06 23:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: caml-list

Greetings,

I discovered OCaml on Doug Bagley's computer shootout page where he
gives it a rave review over all the other languages he evaluated.

After looking into it further, I'm just surprised that OCaml isn't
more popular.  It seems to have all the rapid development features of
a scripting language like Python, but unlike scripting languages
offers fast native code like a compiled language.  Seemingly the best
of both worlds.

Any ideas why OCaml isn't more well known?  Is it just because the
language is not as old as something like Python, or perhaps because
the syntax is more difficult to learn?

=====
Regards,
Graham

http://mobile.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Mobile
- Check & compose your email via SMS on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile.

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 57+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-03-17 23:49 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 57+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-03-14 22:14 [Caml-list] OCaml popularity Daniel M. Albro
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-03-15 16:27 Oliver Bandel
2003-03-15 17:55 ` Sergey Goldgaber
2003-03-13 14:39 [oliver: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity] Oliver Bandel
2003-03-13 16:35 ` [Caml-list] OCaml popularity Michael Schuerig
2003-03-13  7:09 Daniel M. Albro
2003-03-13 16:48 ` Neel Krishnaswami
2003-03-13 21:29 ` Karl Zilles
2003-03-13 21:36   ` Daniel M. Albro
2003-03-13 21:42   ` Daniel M. Albro
     [not found]     ` <15985.1204.814698.939943@h00045a4799d6.ne.client2.attbi.com>
2003-03-14  5:49       ` Daniel M. Albro
2003-03-14  9:05         ` Ville-Pertti Keinonen
2003-03-14  9:13           ` Daniel M. Albro
2003-03-13 21:53   ` Brian Hurt
2003-03-12 23:53 [oliver: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml popularity] Oliver Bandel
2003-03-13  1:34 ` [Caml-list] OCaml popularity Michael Schuerig
2003-03-12 17:40 isaac gouy
2003-03-06 23:27 Graham Guttocks
2003-03-10 20:43 ` Paul Steckler
2003-03-10 23:48 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2003-03-11  0:18   ` Brian Hurt
2003-03-17 23:49   ` Graham Guttocks
2003-03-11  1:43 ` Nicolas Cannasse
2003-03-11 10:23   ` Pierre Weis
2003-03-11 14:27     ` Guillaume Marceau
2003-03-11 16:16       ` David Brown
2003-03-12  2:32       ` Nicolas Cannasse
2003-03-12 10:51         ` Alex Romadinoff
2003-03-12 18:24         ` Max Kirillov
2003-03-11 19:02     ` Graham Guttocks
2003-03-12 17:12       ` Richard W.M. Jones
2003-03-12 18:08         ` Alwyn Goodloe
2003-03-12 22:34           ` Michael Schuerig
2003-03-12 23:13             ` Martin Weber
2003-03-12 23:35               ` Michael Schuerig
2003-03-13  8:02                 ` Alessandro Baretta
2003-03-13 10:23                   ` Michael Schuerig
2003-03-12 23:35             ` Brian Hurt
2003-03-12 23:18         ` Daniel Bünzli
2003-03-12 23:47           ` Brian Hurt
2003-03-13  2:15         ` William Lovas
2003-03-13  3:44           ` Graham Guttocks
2003-03-13  9:31           ` Richard W.M. Jones
     [not found]           ` <20030313095232.GC347@first.in-berlin.de>
2003-03-13 20:50             ` William Lovas
2003-03-13 21:17               ` Oliver Bandel
2003-03-13 22:01                 ` Brian Hurt
2003-03-13 22:17                 ` Oliver Bandel
2003-03-14  6:33                 ` Michal Moskal
2003-03-14 11:50                   ` Markus Mottl
2003-03-14 15:38                     ` Oliver Bandel
2003-03-14 10:13               ` MikhailFedotov
2003-03-14 10:30                 ` Johann Spies
2003-03-13  8:09       ` Pierre Weis
2003-03-15  1:43     ` Tushar Samant
2003-03-15  8:19       ` Andreas Eder
2003-03-11 16:26   ` Fred Yankowski
2003-03-12 18:59 ` Martin Weber
2003-03-12 20:24   ` Xavier Leroy
2003-03-13  0:42   ` Graham Guttocks

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox