[Ocaml-biz] limits, libraries, technical markets

[Brian Hurt]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

> Brian Hurt wrote:
> > The string size limitation that got
> > brought up today in the main list is an example of this-
> > the guy was
> > wanting to read the entire file into a string.
> 
> Let's not chase markets where this commonly needs to be done.

When does it ever *need* to be done?  On a 32-bit architecture?  What 
markets are losing here?

Actually, I just thought of one place where they are annoying- bit fields.

> Only partly.  Much experience of a language is transmitted by people who
> simply tried things out on the internet, without a book.  You can't
> count on everyone knowing how to get around specific warts if they're
> fundamental to the language.  The 'street cred' of the language becomes
> "Well, I had all this trouble!"

"RTFM".  Not only do most languages have the standard introductory book, 
the vast majority of programmers in that language have read said book.  
Consider the Sun books for Java, K&R for C, the camel book for Perl, etc.

A "tricks and traps" book would be a bad idea either (witness Bruce 
Eckel's "Thinking in ..." books).


> I've seen them for Python, in a paper about why a group switched to
> Erlang.  Different issues, but whitepapers about language failure *are*
> transmitted.  The failing language gets a footnote in a whitepaper about
> a successful language.  As for what you've seen about Java and C++, we'd
> be so lucky to be so popular to have so much command over people's
> attention that it didn't matter.

OK.  But I note that Erlang doesn't seem to be in a position to kill 
Python...

-- 
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
                                - Gene Spafford 
Brian