Article View: comp.lang.functional
Article #1219Re: The non-freeness of OCAML (Was: Re: Comparison of various functional languages?)
From: mottl
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:00
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:00
49 lines
3268 bytes
3268 bytes
In comp.lang.functional Ed Avis <epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
> mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at wrote:
>>we also try to promote the idea of FP. So why support a technology
>>(IP) we consider inferior?
> Surely you want to give your competition a sporting chance. It's not
> very convincing to withold useful code from your competitors, then
> claim that FP is superior because it has these features and imperative
> languages don't. After all, I'm sure that many ideas which originated
> in imperative programming are useful for FP as well. (Interpreters
> and optimizing compilers, for a start.)
We shouldn't create the impression that someone is withholding code /
technology. The source code is *freely* available! No doubt about this -
everyone can learn from it.
The question is, whether commercial enterprises may actually just
cut'n'paste the code into their projects. I think this is what INRIA does
not want to have. Otherwise the researchers would have to explain to
their superiors, why they "work" for industry - without any payoff for
their research (maybe the opposite if people keep using the commercial
products).
> Better to let as many people as possible use the technology, so it can
> be refined and improved upon. But I'd guess that it would make the
> most difference in FP, so you can still (fairly) point out advantages.
There is even an online CVS-repository for OCAML where you can get the
latest developer version:
http://camlcvs.inria.fr
And if you carefully read through the archive of the mailing list, you
will see that there are sometimes user contributions ("sometimes" only,
because compiler development is probably not common knowledge to most
programmers), which eventually find their way into the main-distribution.
Even if I wanted to distribute an own (binary) version of OCAML, INRIA
would probably grant the permission to do so. People who just want
to do research and try new methods on already well-developed systems
very surely do not have to fear that permission is refused. E.g. the
"O'Labl"-project: http://pauillac.inria.fr/olabl
Best regards,
Markus Mottl
--
Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<7g6ksf$bn@cantine.wu-wien.ac.at>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<87aew9agkw.fsf@padova.cnet.com> <7f5l3o$r6r@cantine.wu-wien.ac.at> <87btgpldhv.fsf_-_@ugh.jyu.fi.invalid> <7f6sqi$bjq@cantine.wu-wien.ac.at> <87k8vcn7ga.fsf@ugh.jyu.fi.invalid> <7f8bot$18j@cantine.wu-wien.ac.at> <7ffcc0$mc7$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <7fgg6c$3it@cantine.wu-wien.ac.at> <7fjn60$bjj$1@izvestia.its.unimelb.edu.au> <7fq548$2uk@cantine.wu-wien.ac.at> <3725D699.332FC3A5@doc.ic.ac.uk>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 107f24,8f092766f1b7cf8b
X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public
X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,653c2e4cab54a9ac
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
From: mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at
Subject: Re: The non-freeness of OCAML (Was: Re: Comparison of various functional languages?)
Date: 1999/04/28
Message-ID: <7g6ksf$bn@cantine.wu-wien.ac.at>
X-Deja-AN: 471819012
References: <87aew9agkw.fsf@padova.cnet.com> <7f5l3o$r6r@cantine.wu-wien.ac.at> <87btgpldhv.fsf_-_@ugh.jyu.fi.invalid> <7f6sqi$bjq@cantine.wu-wien.ac.at> <87k8vcn7ga.fsf@ugh.jyu.fi.invalid> <7f8bot$18j@cantine.wu-wien.ac.at> <7ffcc0$mc7$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <7fgg6c$3it@cantine.wu-wien.ac.at> <7fjn60$bjj$1@izvestia.its.unimelb.edu.au> <7fq548$2uk@cantine.wu-wien.ac.at> <3725D699.332FC3A5@doc.ic.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Economics and Business Administration, Vienna, Austria
User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-981225 ("Volcane") (UNIX) (OSF1/V4.0 (alpha))
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional,gnu.misc.discuss