Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] OCaml Standard Recommandation Process

["Yaron Minsky" <yminsky@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1681 bytes --]

On Jan 27, 2008 4:07 PM, Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:

> On Sunday 27 January 2008 19:07:01 David Teller wrote:
> > You are correct, I should have been more specific. The idea is to
> > discuss
> > * libraries
> > * Camlp4 extensions
> > * language features that may be implemented as a combination of
> > libraires and Camlp4 extensions
> > * actual code.
>
> Would it not be much easier and much more productive to simply fork the
> OCaml
> distribution and address these issues at source? You could then address
> many
> other issues like improving the stdlib, adding a "try..finally" construct
> to
> the language, adding features to help with the brittle binding problem and
> opening the compiler's internal representations to the outside world.


That seems like a fairly awful idea to me.  Trying to develop the core
language away from the confines of INRIA seems expensive and unlikely to go
well.  The INRIA team understands the core of the language like no one else,
after all, and it will be hard to replace that expertise.

I do think there is value in outside companies thinking carefully about a
limited set of improvements that (a) can only be fixed in the core language
and (b) would make it easier for outsiders to add necessary features.

One role I would like to see the caml team take upon itself is that of
blessing standardization efforts.  If INRIA had a link on its site to a
recommended batteries-included distribution, that would help the community
coalesce around that distribution.  Obviously trying to choose winners in
this way is tricky and not to be done lightly, but I do think there's a good
chance that it will become important.

y

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2070 bytes --]