Re: [Caml-list] Smoke Vector Graphics: source code licenses for sale

[Oliver Bandel <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>]

Zitat von Edgar Friendly <thelema314@gmail.com>:

> Alexandre Pilkiewicz wrote:
> > Do you think it may be possible one day for OCaml to have a normalisation,
> > like Haskell had in 1998, and if it's allready the case, where can I find
> > it ?
> >
> I don't see the need for formalizing the OCaml language - If we tried to
> characterize what the current compiler did, we'd fail in many many
> details.  And if we tried to write a spec independent of the compiler,
> all of a sudden we'd just introduce hundreds of bugs into the compiler
> because of its deviation from the spec.
>
> Formal specifications have use in strictly "research" languages, but I
> see their ability to stifle growth and improvement as more negative than
> their ability to help people understand the proper operation of OCaml.
>
[...]

It seems there are so many wishes to OCaml,
which are similar to wishes that long-time Word-users
that tried LaTeX the first time had for LaTeX.

Things like "how to change the layout freely, as I can do with Word?"
and they are looking for so many things of freedom that result
in ugly layouts, ugly typography, ...

The don't know about microtypography, kerning, grey-value of the
page, the number of characters per line that are easily readable,
the peace for the eye (and mind), when there are not too many fonts and colors,
and the many other typographic details, that are built-in in TeX/LaTeX.

And: no, TeX/LaTeX is/are not perfect. But they are always a good choice. :)

And the discussions on this list often remind me on those discussions about
LaTeX ;-)

I don't want to say, feature-wishes are nonsense... I only saw a
similarity in the kind of feature-wishes. :)


Ciao,
   Oliver


P.S.: This mail is not intended to offend someone; only a note
      to - maybe - contemplate about, when you have some minutes
      of free time ;-)
      (and sorry, if I'm too much off-topic ;-))