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=1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D68BC6C for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:48:25 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAKKKnEfRVca9emdsb2JhbACCOjaNOAEBCQgpk3WFZQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,257,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="21860859" Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.189]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2008 22:48:19 +0100 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k20so1220201rvb.3 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:47:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=SR8C2IUJJ973wnqOcTEIQYCDxkl4E9fJzGO9hwG3DuI=; b=RuL7WABq5n1etH7RmjQ0LfDR6eeHNVBA3GDCiTGqdiC9GN3z0Az5YGz3WTH/KN0lPymrzPfE63qAM0IYXiDW+nDbluN/fnoO9PV7PQRWDz+plQwQqufpLs5qo7inH6BGyVOADX2scX7Jblw1f14pDibqfKZZ9Ej88OL2I2kw0XM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=r/fhOj0ottAjpUK75WPewKZHVk5NGYK3w2n7mGngKA8ori2Dh12hFvRPghDOUIl5oKXRFOLOG2thZuo2TztWprdDHHF7uso4XyQ1nVKmyYlOs9C/D9H/m7nvnTHuoUakouarCo+sxw9IP/H8q0Xy44ufQ4yyPAOFMp3ZepCmcXU= Received: by 10.141.22.1 with SMTP id z1mr2966870rvi.277.1201470467490; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:47:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.12.14 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:47:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <891bd3390801271347y56af21cam492ccaac1348bb05@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:47:47 -0500 From: "Yaron Minsky" Reply-To: yminsky@gmail.com To: "Jon Harrop" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] OCaml Standard Recommandation Process Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <200801272107.23900.jon@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_7001_22401414.1201470467586" References: <1201440183.6302.27.camel@Blefuscu> <891bd3390801270624h4df6cdadn9d5e888dae615280@mail.gmail.com> <1201460821.19472.31.camel@Blefuscu> <200801272107.23900.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Spam: no; 0.00; yaron:01 minsky:01 yminsky:01 ocaml:01 camlp:01 camlp:01 ocaml:01 stdlib:01 confines:01 stdlib:01 confines:01 blessing:98 blessing:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 ------=_Part_7001_22401414.1201470467586 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Jan 27, 2008 4:07 PM, Jon Harrop 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 ------=_Part_7001_22401414.1201470467586 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 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

------=_Part_7001_22401414.1201470467586--