Re: [Caml-list] Some comments on recent discussions

[Gerd Stolpmann <info@gerd-stolpmann.de>]

Am Samstag, den 10.12.2011, 17:32 -0300 schrieb Andrei Formiga:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Jonathan Protzenko
> <jonathan.protzenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > = Improving the community =
> >
> > I think the main point of the discussion is to improve "the community". If
> > we really want to improve OCaml as a whole, then I think we can put our
> > efforts on better areas than patching the compiler.
> >
> > == Package management system ==
> >
> > The thing that's most needed is, imho, a package manager that works.
> > Oasis-db looked very promising as far as I could tell, but Sylvain doesn't
> > have as much time as he used to do. Instead of hacking on our pet projects
> > (which is, I admit, very rewarding), maybe someone could step up and make
> > Oasis-db happen. We don't have a single, unified answer to "what should I
> > install to easily hack with OCaml?". What made Python, Perl, Haskell
> > successful is the package management systems. How much longer are we going
> > to shy away from this issue? Sure, it's much more fun to hack on the
> > compiler. Not as useful.
> >
> 
> I think a good package system (with associated repository) and better
> documentation are the two biggest things that can help OCaml's
> adoption. It's true that there are languages that have become
> successful without a package management system, but it has become
> increasingly expected that languages have one. OCaml does not have
> marketing or hype, so it has to win over new users by not creating
> barriers to adoption. Plus it's much easier to work on a daily basis,
> even for veterans. This is already true with GODI, which saves me a
> lot of time when the library I need to install is available in its
> repo.
> 
> The question is: what should be done? What must be done to enable
> OASIS-DB? Or should everyone adopt GODI? What's the situation between
> these two systems? Maybe having some kind of rough roadmap would help
> there.

The plan is that OASIS-DB exports its packages in a format that is
understood by GODI. OASIS-DB would then appear as a second source for
packages. For users there would be practically no difference -
godi_console just fetches packages from a second site, too.

For package developers this will mean that there is a choice. More
complicated packages will probably remain native GODI ones (because of
the unlimited scripting) whereas the average library will be well
expressable in OASIS-DB.

Gerd


> Regarding documentation, this is a problem in many fronts, beginning
> with the book situation. Practical OCaml was a good idea, badly
> executed. And Jason Hicks' fine book is probably stuck in limbo
> because of legal battles and so it never came out. I recently had a
> look at the Go language from Google, and the "A Tour of Go" tutorial
> is very good (at http://tour.golang.org/ ). Maybe something similar
> for OCaml would be a nice addition, especially given that the OCaml
> Tutorial is apparently MIA. But I think having a good package manager
> should come first (btw, Go has one).
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> []s, Andrei Formiga
>