# \[OT\] the funniest thing ever **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [10 February 2007 06:13 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238 "2007-02-10T06:13:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ara.T.Howard6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@Ara.T.Howard6](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ara.T.Howard6)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 15:49 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/21 "2007-02-13T15:49:38Z")
it's OT - but not \_\_that\_\_ OT. here's why    [http://sciruby.codeforpeople.com/sr.cgi/ProjectIdeas/RubyOCaml?highlight=(ocaml)](http://sciruby.codeforpeople.com/sr.cgi/ProjectIdeas/RubyOCaml?highlight=%28ocaml%29) could be a beautiful thing.... -a > **···** > > On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Richard Conroy wrote: > > > I didn't get enough time to itemise the OCaml library space. Apologies > > if I have misrepresented the language. But I spent some time googling > > and chasing resources and didn't find anything, and no real links from > > the main page or tutorials. I got the impression that Caml development > > basically meant binding to C libraries. > > > > Whats the rubyforge equivalent for (O)Caml? Private e-mail it if you think > > this thread has gone too OT. I am very interested. A healthy library > > ecology raises OCaml from something to keep an eye on, to immediate > > attention. > > > > > If the base > > > language package contains nearly nothing, \*that's an advantage\*. > > > > Agreed. But if I didn't make it clear, my main concern was the availability > > of libraries for common development tasks, like database development, > > network comms protocols (particularly secure ones). etc. > > > > Yeah, this is getting more than a bit OT, but (O)Caml \*is\* interesting. > > -- > we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being better. > simply reflect on that. > - the dalai lama ---
**Author:** ![Aur\_Saraf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bcef8e/32.png) [@Aur\_Saraf](https://rubytalk.org/u/Aur_Saraf)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 10:48 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/22 "2007-02-13T10:48:43Z")
Sorry if I am wrong, but did those projects exist in 2001? > **···** > > On 2/13/07, Jimmy Kofler \ wrote: > > > Maybe some projects such as [http://www.haxe.org](http://www.haxe.org) or > > [http://www.ocsigen.org](http://www.ocsigen.org) should have been mentioned in the article. > > > > -- > > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C). ---
**Author:** ![Forum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/43a26b/32.png) [@Forum](https://rubytalk.org/u/Forum)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 16:19 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/23 "2007-02-13T16:19:07Z")
> \> \> Richard Conroy wrote: > \> \> \> It has some fantastic features at the language > \> \> \> design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library > \> \> \> to speak of. > \> \ > > And you have to love the Ruby community Well, I do 🙂 where an off-topic humor > thread starts espousing the wonders of the ocaml language. I remember > a similar thing happening on a previous thread comparing Ruby and > Python. It, too, ended up discussing how the wonders of ocaml. But is that not a well known law(n)? 42nd law of the dynamics of language discussion:   All discussions eventually orbit O?Caml! TwP > Robert > **···** > > On 2/13/07, Tim Pease \ wrote: > > > On 2/13/07, Richard Conroy \ wrote: > > \> On 2/13/07, Clifford Heath \ wrote: > > -- > We have not succeeded in answering all of our questions. > In fact, in some ways, we are more confused than ever. > But we feel we are confused on a higher level and about more important > things. > -Anonymous ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Kofler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e495f1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Kofler](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jimmy_Kofler)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 11:06 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/24 "2007-02-13T11:06:58Z")
> SonOfLilit wrote: > Sorry if I am wrong, but did those projects exist in 2001? The web site/article has been updated just recently, i. e. "Last updated November 17, 2006". > **···** > > -- > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C). ---
**Author:** ![Giles\_Bowkett](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/96bed5/32.png) [@Giles\_Bowkett](https://rubytalk.org/u/Giles_Bowkett)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 16:28 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/25 "2007-02-13T16:28:14Z")
> 42nd law of the dynamics of language discussion: >   All discussions eventually orbit O?Caml! The same publisher that released "Practical Common Lisp" recently released "Practical OCaml." I've been wondering ever since I discovered this whether it means OCaml has gradually become more useful in a pragmatic sense, or if it simply represents one isolated individual publisher with a very unusual definition of "practical." > **···** > > -- > Giles Bowkett > [http://www.gilesgoatboy.org](http://www.gilesgoatboy.org) > > > **[Giles Bowkett](http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com)** > > > > half-disavowed old blog. new blog at gilesbowkett.com > > [http://gilesgoatboy.blogspot.com](http://gilesgoatboy.blogspot.com) ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Conroy1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Richard\_Conroy1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Richard_Conroy1)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 18:32 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/26 "2007-02-13T18:32:45Z")
I think much of the recent interest is due to a lot of big OSS projects taking interest in it. Possibly the Mozilla group. Its the fusion of ideas that is most interesting: \* C-like nativeness, performance and compile-to-everything \* Memory management and runtime integrity with the implied security that entails - features normally associated with Java \* Dynamic language benefits, like low-LOCs and implied maintenance reduction, type inference and lots of funky language-isms that I don't really understand, that all the cool kids are into It has the potential to carve out a significant niche for itself. Sure if you are intimidated by new languages look elsewhere, if you need the 'reassurance' of a corporate sponsor you won't find it here either, but it has a lot of potential in the open source field, and anywhere really that you need portable cross compilation. Mind you, in this day and age when its getting hard to make Win 32 code that runs on windows anymore, theres opportunities there too. > **···** > > On 2/13/07, Giles Bowkett \ wrote: > > > \> 42nd law of the dynamics of language discussion: > > \> All discussions eventually orbit O?Caml! > > > > The same publisher that released "Practical Common Lisp" recently > > released "Practical OCaml." I've been wondering ever since I > > discovered this whether it means OCaml has gradually become more > > useful in a pragmatic sense, or if it simply represents one isolated > > individual publisher with a very unusual definition of "practical." ---
**Author:** ![Giles\_Bowkett](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/96bed5/32.png) [@Giles\_Bowkett](https://rubytalk.org/u/Giles_Bowkett)\ **Post date:** [13 February 2007 19:30 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238/27 "2007-02-13T19:30:22Z")
I know Jane St. Capital is using OCaml extensively in financial trading apps, because I can't use Gmail without ads reminding me. It's definitely in production for some uses. > **···** > > On 2/13/07, Richard Conroy \ wrote: > > > On 2/13/07, Giles Bowkett \ wrote: > > \> \> 42nd law of the dynamics of language discussion: > > \> \> All discussions eventually orbit O?Caml! > > \> > > \> The same publisher that released "Practical Common Lisp" recently > > \> released "Practical OCaml." I've been wondering ever since I > > \> discovered this whether it means OCaml has gradually become more > > \> useful in a pragmatic sense, or if it simply represents one isolated > > \> individual publisher with a very unusual definition of "practical." > > > > I think much of the recent interest is due to a lot of big OSS projects > > taking interest in it. Possibly the Mozilla group. Its the fusion of ideas > > that is most interesting: > > \* C-like nativeness, performance and compile-to-everything > > \* Memory management and runtime integrity with the implied security > > that entails - features normally associated with Java > > \* Dynamic language benefits, like low-LOCs and implied maintenance > > reduction, type inference and lots of funky language-isms that I don't really > > understand, that all the cool kids are into > > > > It has the potential to carve out a significant niche for itself. Sure if you > > are intimidated by new languages look elsewhere, if you need the > > 'reassurance' of a corporate sponsor you won't find it here either, but > > it has a lot of potential in the open source field, and anywhere really > > that you need portable cross compilation. > > > > Mind you, in this day and age when its getting hard to make Win 32 > > code that runs on windows anymore, theres opportunities there too. > > -- > Giles Bowkett > [http://www.gilesgoatboy.org](http://www.gilesgoatboy.org) > > > **[Giles Bowkett](http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com)** > > > > half-disavowed old blog. new blog at gilesbowkett.com > > [http://gilesgoatboy.blogspot.com](http://gilesgoatboy.blogspot.com) [Previous page](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-the-funniest-thing-ever/35238.md?page=1)