From: leary@nwlink.com
To: Jonathan Coupe <jonathan@meanwhile.freeserve.co.uk>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:20:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010610172036.A19470@jean> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <001c01c0f134$0cc4ee80$c9d8893e@baby>; from jonathan@meanwhile.freeserve.co.uk on Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 11:32:20PM +0100
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 11:32:20PM +0100, Jonathan Coupe wrote:
> No. What I said was that you won't convice sceptical colleagues that you're
> right in choosing ocaml until you ship.
Didn't you see the winky smiley and the "But seriously..."?
But I disagree anyway; there's no way to know exactly when people will be
convinced of something. For example, a milestone or two on a large project
might be enough; and shipping two products might not be.
> You certainly won't
> convince anyone that ocaml was the right choice by saying that you're
> developing faster "from day one" as you claimed. People make claims that all
> the time. They're usually wrong. In fact, making claims like will reduce
> crdibility - unless you've got unusually tight metrics to back you're claim
> up. From your comments, I'm pretty sure you've never been a lead on a
> commercial project.
Actually, what I *asked* was, "How much time and money do development teams
spend creating and tracking down memory management errors in C and C++
starting on day one?". 'Not much' was your answer. I didn't argue with
that. But since you bring it up again... Having to address memory
management is a cost in time and/or money associated with development in C
and C++ -- you must address the issue *somehow*. Not having to deal with
memory management is an immediate and ongoing benefit, *however small*,
from using OCaml rather than C or C++.
And before you say it, yes, this is probably going to be outweighed by the
availability of off the shelf components and libraries, and the fact that
it's easier and maybe cheaper to find replacement programmers for a popular
language, among a number of other factors which would likely tend to make
development faster in those languages.
> Hmm. No one I've ever met uses GnuSmalltalk. My understanding from people
> who have tried is that its only marginall usable. The standard open source
> smalltalk is Squeak. Ruby, a Smalltalk cousin, is probably alos worth
> looking at - and is spreading like wildfire. You can find more Smalltalk
> stuff at www.stic.org
Mea culpa, I just searched on Google for "smalltalk free" and went to the
first link, 'cause I got warm fuzzies when I saw "GNU". I still don't like
all OOP, all the time, tho'.
Didn't know that about Ruby; interesting. I read it's all the rage in
Japan. Go figure.
-------------------
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-06-11 0:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-06-07 8:58 leary
2001-06-07 18:29 ` Jonathan Coupe
2001-06-08 9:41 ` leary
2001-06-08 10:05 ` Why is Ocaml better than Java (WAS: [Caml-list] ocaml complexity) Mattias Waldau
2001-06-08 13:31 ` Pierre Weis
2001-06-08 16:37 ` William Chesters
2001-06-08 21:39 ` Brian Rogoff
[not found] ` <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106081430070.27414-100000@shell5.ba.best.co m>
2001-06-08 22:16 ` Chris Hecker
2001-06-08 12:27 ` [Caml-list] ocaml complexity Jonathan Coupe
2001-06-08 20:22 ` Chris Hecker
2001-06-08 20:31 ` Miles Egan
2001-06-08 22:17 ` Jonathan Coupe
2001-06-08 22:18 ` Miles Egan
2001-06-11 14:05 ` Pierre Weis
2001-06-09 19:41 ` John Max Skaller
2001-06-08 22:59 ` David Fox
2001-06-09 0:43 ` leary
2001-06-09 1:09 ` Mark Wotton
2001-06-09 8:36 ` Markus Mottl
2001-06-09 20:58 ` John Max Skaller
2001-06-08 22:46 ` leary
2001-06-09 1:18 ` David Fox
2001-06-12 14:17 ` John Max Skaller
2001-06-13 15:21 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-06-13 20:32 ` leary
2001-06-13 22:58 ` Johann Höchtl
2001-06-13 21:18 ` John Max Skaller
2001-06-09 22:32 ` Jonathan Coupe
2001-06-11 0:20 ` leary [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-06-14 16:04 John R Harrison
2001-06-13 21:04 David Gurr
2001-06-13 23:13 ` leary
2001-06-13 23:19 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-06-15 13:28 ` Tore Lund
2001-06-15 14:03 ` Nils Goesche
2001-06-15 14:54 ` Xavier Leroy
2001-06-15 15:14 ` Jonathan Coupe
2001-06-15 15:23 ` Nils Goesche
2001-06-15 17:38 ` Sven LUTHER
2001-06-15 20:36 ` Remi VANICAT
2001-06-15 14:16 ` Doug Bagley
2001-06-28 12:54 ` Didier Remy
2001-06-28 18:31 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-06-11 20:33 Arturo Borquez
2001-06-11 21:17 ` Miles Egan
2001-06-12 7:19 ` wester
2001-06-06 16:50 Miles Egan
2001-06-06 17:30 ` Chris Hecker
2001-06-06 18:25 ` Charles Martin
2001-06-06 19:27 ` Michael Hicks
2001-06-06 21:15 ` David Fox
2001-06-07 12:25 ` FabienFleutot
2001-06-08 0:27 ` Miles Egan
2001-06-06 19:36 ` William Chesters
2001-06-06 19:55 ` John Max Skaller
2001-06-06 20:06 ` William Chesters
2001-06-07 16:30 ` John Max Skaller
2001-06-08 0:32 ` Miles Egan
2001-06-08 0:56 ` David Fox
2001-06-07 7:35 ` wester
2001-06-07 17:27 ` John Max Skaller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010610172036.A19470@jean \
--to=leary@nwlink.com \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=jonathan@meanwhile.freeserve.co.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox