From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D13CABC6C for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:38:51 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAGqznEfAXQInh2dsb2JhbACQKAEBAQgKKZlF X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,257,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="6634552" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 28 Jan 2008 01:38:51 +0100 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m0S0cp1r005288 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:38:51 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAPKynEfAbSoIZmdsb2JhbACQGw0LCiaZSQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,257,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="8428306" Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 28 Jan 2008 01:38:50 +0100 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de X-Envelope-To: Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id m0S0coMa031230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:38:50 +0100 Received: (from www-data@localhost) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id m0S0copf031228 for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:38:50 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: einhorn.in-berlin.de: www-data set sender to oliver@first.in-berlin.de using -f Received: from dslb-088-073-091-196.pools.arcor-ip.net (dslb-088-073-091-196.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.73.91.196]) by webmail.in-berlin.de (IMP) with HTTP for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:38:49 +0100 Message-ID: <1201480729.479d2419c2f08@webmail.in-berlin.de> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:38:49 +0100 From: Oliver Bandel To: OCaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The OCaml Community (aka back from the Developer Days) References: <1201439362.6302.15.camel@Blefuscu> In-Reply-To: <1201439362.6302.15.camel@Blefuscu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.6 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 479D241B.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; bandel:01 in-berlin:01 ocaml:01 univ-orleans:01 ocaml:01 tarball:01 camomile:01 lablgtk:01 compiler:01 compiler:01 libs:01 ocaml's:01 libs:01 installers:01 cpan:01 Hi! Zitat von David Teller : > Dear list, > > During yesterday's OCaml Developer Day, a few important points have > been discussed. First and foremost, due to extremely limited > manpower, > Inria does not intend to expand on the current OCaml distribution, > nor > even to be in charge of an end-user distribution. Rather, Inria would > concentrate on the core language, in a distribution possibly smaller > than the current tarball, while the community should be in charge of > things such as > * a standard library distribution (e.g. ExtLib + Camomile + LablGtk > + ... ) [...] I'm not clear if I understand you correctly. Would that mean that the standard-libs will be thrown off the OCaml-distribution, and the bare compiler will be available from INRIA? All other things are coming from the "community"? If so, I would not be happy about it. I have no problem with the standard-lib as it is now. Every person who wants to use extlib and such things, can use it, but nobody must use it. I prefer the standard distribution. Possibly, when I decide to use extlib or other things, I can do, but it's my choice. If the currently distributed OCaml distribution would be split into the core compiler and external libs, then the Core-distribution alone does not help so much. One plus of OCaml's distribution as it is now, is, that it compiles good out of the box. One tgz-package and all is well. when things are split up to many packages, this makes a lot of trouble in installation - a thing, which I do not like. I'm a prigrammer, not an administrator, and so I prefer easy installation. If I need extras, I CAN use them, but I can stay with the standard-distribution, and all works well. What, if different external libs are not fitting together? This may bring a lot of installation-annoyance. > * binaries & installers > * testing > * code repositories (Ã la CPAN) Yes, a CPAN-like thing would be good. IMHO, when such a CPAN-like thing and installation-tools are developed and are tested very well, one can decide to make a decision like throwing out some things.... ...if they can be installed easy then in thsi way... ... but even then things might brake. But without such things like CPAN-like archives, throwing out the necessary things, is a NONO. IMHO. So I hope I have understand you not correctly. > * deciding standard practices (e.g. Unicode) > * expanding the platform (e.g. development environments, DSLs) > * maintaining FAQs and tutorials The reference manual for the OCaml as it is now, IMHO should be done more verbose and up-to-date. I think on the OCaml-C-part when writing this sentence... > * evangelism... I try to avoid this more and more... I already have convinced some people, but since a while I started to avoid such evangelism and better concentrate on my own... so I will use it, if possible; if others don't want, they can use Java or Perl. ;-) > > How and when all this should happen needs to be discussed. One tool > for > these discussions is the current mailing-list. Another tool is the > Cocan > Wiki ( http://www.cocan.org ). > > One important thing: every task needs manpower. So please consider > volunteering. [...] I consider it, but I hope that OCaml will stay a powerful tool that can easily be installed in the future too. To have a patchwork of core-compiler and many seperated libraries is not really fine, if it increases the necessary administration efforts. Also I think that INRIA is taking care of their code very well; I have seen a lot of tools and libraries of the community, which are NOT well developed. In principal I agree on the bazaar-method, but dogmatic praying for it is nonsense. At certain points, IMHO it's good to have a cathedral; at least in the case of OCaml I see that it's not that bad. So, I hope changes will be done carefully, so that OCaml will stay safe/secure/reliable and easy to install. Ciao, Oliver