[Ocaml-biz] IDEs

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Brian Hurt wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> >
> > A webpage that actually markets the use of a GNU Emacs toolchain for
> > OCaml, and demonstrates how it really isn't all that bad,
> and packages
> > things up so you're ready to go right away, and shows how
> there's far
> > fewer steps for getting started than you'd think, would go
> a long way to
> > getting someone like me to move over.  But currently that
> website does
> > not exist, or cannot easily be found.
>
> This is a good idea.
>
> I do think that, despite it's Java centrism, Eclipse might be even a
> better target for this than Emacs.

Well, yeah, I agree.  The strategic future is Eclipse, not Emacs.
Worrying about Emacs or Vim is just worrying about installed base, and
picking up the few people who won't touch Eclipse for whatever reason.
Tactically, we still have to deal with how good Eclipse currently is for
OCaml though.

> There is a difference between making it easy/easier to
> install and use one
> editor, and making it impossible/disallowed to use another
> one.

Let's say, for sake of argument, I wanted to actively prevent you from
using Vi to program in OCaml.  How would I do that?  I don't see a way
for me to do that.  So on this point, what's to discuss?

> If you
> want to use vi, you'll need to spend some time futzing.
> Fine, I'm cool with that.

What you describe is exactly the situation we have today.  If you're
cool with the situation today, ok, your needs are met.  Tons of people's
needs aren't met though.  Ergo the importance of packaging, marketing,
and promoting a core set of tools that works really well.  I think it
should probably only promote 1 IDE, Eclipse.  Guys like you can / will
always find ways to cobble GNU Emacs, XEmacs, or Vim together.  Nobody
can stop you from making yourselves happy.

> > It is about selling the initial experience.  This is
> > ocaml-biz, so we talk about how to market to people.
>
> Yep.  And remember that there are more people out there to
> market to than just Corporate Windows Developers.

Sure, there's all those Corporate Java Developers.  ;-)

Happy to hear more about how to market to open source
cobble-my-own-stuff-together UNIXen.  But you seem to be saying, they
don't have certain problems and aren't needing certain attentions.

> Calling programmers 'line workers' is a whacked idea.
> Programmers are
> less like assembly line workers than they are lawyers, doctors, or
> engineers.  We're hired because we know things.  How to best
> do our jobs, for one.

You aren't feeling the exodus of jobs to India, China, Russia, and
Eastern Europe yet, are you.

> Admins- the
> line workers- were doing it, replacing Windows NT with
> Linux/Samba, often
> in direct disobedience of "Windows only" orders.

Well, Linux also did a really good job of solving a particular problem.
I'm not convinced OCaml solves *any* job in quite that way at this time.
If you can come up with a job that OCaml can solve, that is so damn
useful that lotsa line workers will deploy it everywhere despite orders
to the contrary, let's hear it.  That would be our ideal showcase
project.

Also, I'm totally glossing over the amount of labor it took to get Linux
to that point.  If I had hundreds of people to work on an OCaml 3D
engine, it could be exactly that sort of "spread like wildfire"
technology.  But show me the labor?


Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
                          - anonymous entrepreneur