🚀 go-pugleaf

mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at writes:

>> I would hope that OCAML has more to offer the FP-community than a
>> few implementation features that can be transferred into Java.

> It certainly has ;-)

> But speed of language implementations is also one of the criterias for
> choosing a language. Why should INRIA want to have an even stronger
> competition from the IP-side?

When learning about C++, there is one thing that stuck in my mind, and 
that probably will stick long after C++ is dead and buried:  Bjarne
Strostrup was aked why he decided to free C++, instead of
keeping it within AT&T.  His answer was that AT&T was a lot larger as
a consumer of software than a manufacturer, and having the language
used as widely as possible would benefit them more than just using it
internally[0].

> The high speed of OCAML-compiled code and the fast interpreter are
> definitely a big plus for people taking a look at FP.

Of course, the first languages to borrow things would probably be the
closest family members - other FP languages.

> This is not the problem - it's not only a question of source freeness
> but we also try to promote the idea of FP. So why support a technology
> (IP) we consider inferior?

Why not?  Or, more to the point, why not allow that technology to
evolve better by utilizing modern technology where appropriate? 

I don't think Java and OCAML are much in competition, most people turn 
to Java by default, and probably haven't heard of OCAML at all.  I
think you'll agree that the number of projects considering both, and
ending up choosing OCAML because of performance, are negligible.

If mindshare is what it's about, why not release your code but require
an ad clause, akin to the BSD license?

-kzm

[0] Okay, we all know that the real reason was to trick their
competitors into wasting countless resources on their stone age
language.  They're probably secretly using OCAML internally. :-) 
-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants