[Caml-list] ocaml-developer mailing-list: subscribe now!
Martin Jambon
There's a new OCaml mailing-list/forum for OCaml software developers:
http://groups.google.com/group/ocaml-developer
This forum is centered on practical issues that arise during OCaml
software development.
Appropriate topics for this forum include:
* Which library should I use for doing job X?
* Should I write my own?
* Has anyone had the same problem before?
* How to communicate with other software components written in language Y?
* Project architecture and build tools
* Cross-platform issues
* Web development
* Intensive and distributed computing
* Packaging and distribution
* File formats and implementation of domain-specific languages
...
Of course all the topics above must be addressed in the context of OCaml
applications.
Topics which are excluded from this forum are:
* Learning the OCaml language
* Discussing language extensions without trying to implement and use them
effectively
ocaml_b...@yahoogroups.com and caml...@inria.fr and wonderful
places for such things...
Martin Jambon (list admin)
_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
Daniel Bünzli
Le 9 mars 07 à 21:02, Martin Jambon a écrit :
> Appropriate topics for this forum include:
>
> * Which library should I use for doing job X?
> * Should I write my own?
> * Has anyone had the same problem before?
> * How to communicate with other software components written in
> language Y?
> * Project architecture and build tools
> * Cross-platform issues
> * Web development
> * Intensive and distributed computing
> * Packaging and distribution
> * File formats and implementation of domain-specific languages
> ...
Reading the charter of the caml-list,
> The Caml mailing list is intended for all users of the Caml
> implementations developed at INRIA. The purpose of this list is to
> share experience, exchange ideas and code, and report on
> applications of the Caml language.
I don't see why these topics cannot be discussed here.
I would see the point of a domain specific mailing-list (e.g. web
development in ocaml) but ocaml-developer seems like caml-list-2 to me.
Could you perhaps motivate the point of your initiative ?
Best,
Daniel
Martin Jambon
> Le 9 mars 07 ŕ 21:02, Martin Jambon a écrit :
>
>> The Caml mailing list is intended for all users of the Caml implementations
>> developed at INRIA. The purpose of this list is to share experience,
>> exchange ideas and code, and report on applications of the Caml language.
>
> I don't see why these topics cannot be discussed here.
>
> I would see the point of a domain specific mailing-list (e.g. web development
> in ocaml) but ocaml-developer seems like caml-list-2 to me.
>
> Could you perhaps motivate the point of your initiative ?
1) Less traffic
2) Skipping all the unnecessary "language geekiness" stuff
To a newcomer, caml-list looks a lot like a forum for programming
language researchers, which is cool, but not being able to understand 2/3
of the messages is kind of intimidating for someone who thought he/she
knew OCaml.
Martin
--
Martin Jambon
http://martin.jambon.free.fr
Joel Reymont
On Mar 10, 2007, at 8:32 PM, Martin Jambon wrote:
> To a newcomer, caml-list looks a lot like a forum for programming
> language researchers, which is cool, but not being able to
> understand 2/3 of the messages is kind of intimidating for someone
> who thought he/she knew OCaml.
I'll play the devil's advocate here and suggest that this is what the
ocaml-beginners Yahoo! Group is for.
Martin Jambon
> On Mar 10, 2007, at 8:32 PM, Martin Jambon wrote:
>
>> To a newcomer, caml-list looks a lot like a forum for programming language
>> researchers, which is cool, but not being able to understand 2/3 of the
>> messages is kind of intimidating for someone who thought he/she knew OCaml.
>
> I'll play the devil's advocate here and suggest that this is what the
> ocaml-beginners Yahoo! Group is for.
That's what happens in practice. But no, the ocaml-beginners list is
described as a beginners' forum. Why would anyone else subscribe?
I've been receiving the messages from ocaml-beginners since its creation.
At that time I was not a beginner for a long time already, but it has been
interesting until now because some questions are just practical
questions which do not have anything to do with learning the OCaml
language.
But here again, not everyone is interested in reading and answering
beginners' questions, which still constitutes the majority of messages
there.
Martin
--
Martin Jambon
http://martin.jambon.free.fr
_______________________________________________
Gabriel Kerneis
<martin...@ens-lyon.org> a écrit :
> That's what happens in practice. But no, the ocaml-beginners list is
> described as a beginners' forum. Why would anyone else subscribe?
BTW, I've subscribed to the beginner's list but I'm still waiting for a
moderator to approve my subscription. Is there anyone who can do it
here ?
Regards,
--
Gabriel Kerneis
ls-ocaml-de...@m-e-leypold.de
Martin Jambon <martin...@ens-lyon.org> writes:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Daniel Bünzli wrote:
>
>> Le 9 mars 07 ŕ 21:02, Martin Jambon a écrit :
>>
>>> The Caml mailing list is intended for all users of the Caml
>>> implementations developed at INRIA. The purpose of this list is to
>>> share experience, exchange ideas and code, and report on
>>> applications of the Caml language.
>>
>> I don't see why these topics cannot be discussed here.
>>
>> I would see the point of a domain specific mailing-list (e.g. web
>> development in ocaml) but ocaml-developer seems like caml-list-2 to
>> me.
>>
>> Could you perhaps motivate the point of your initiative ?
>
> 1) Less traffic
Well -- if I subscribe to both lists, I'd have quite the same traffic
and 2 groups to sort in my mail client instead of one. I also have 1
more group to search for ocaml related thread topics I rememebr but
not quite where I read them.
If I only subscribe to one list I'll miss traffic which is not clearly
distinguished topically between those 2 lists.
Either way, I loose. The community fragments. I prefer 1 stop shops
and just skipping manually new threads I don't like: With a threaded
news/mail reader and 1 new thread per day that is not a problem.
> 2) Skipping all the unnecessary "language geekiness" stuff
And that cannot be done by hand so that we have to split the community?
> To a newcomer, caml-list looks a lot like a forum for programming
> language researchers,
Well -- perhaps a regular posting of a mailing list FAQ or the list
charta would help to mitigate that impression. Your action, if
successful will probably draw traffic from the caml-list and make it
"look like" as if the popularity of ocaml has furtther declined (and
BTW: This fragmentation in mailing lists has been a problem to the
public perception of SML).
> which is cool, but not being able to understand
> 2/3 of the messages is kind of intimidating for someone who thought
> he/she knew OCaml.
Surprise: There is lots to learn. Actually I'd call that a chance or a
challenge as opposed to boredom and ennui.
Regards -- Markus
Richard Jones
Gabriel,
I can't see you in the list of pending subscribers, nor in the member
list. If you're still having problems subscribing then please send
another subscription request, and CC it to me.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones
Red Hat
Oliver Bandel
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 11:07:19AM +0100, Gabriel Kerneis wrote:
> > Le Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:10:30 -0800 (PST), Martin Jambon
> > <martin...@ens-lyon.org> a écrit :
> > > That's what happens in practice. But no, the ocaml-beginners list is
> > > described as a beginners' forum. Why would anyone else subscribe?
> >
> > BTW, I've subscribed to the beginner's list but I'm still waiting for a
> > moderator to approve my subscription. Is there anyone who can do it
> > here ?
>
> Gabriel,
>
> I can't see you in the list of pending subscribers, nor in the member
> list. If you're still having problems subscribing then please send
> another subscription request, and CC it to me.
Well subscribing to yahoo-groups is an annoying thing.
And that's the reason why I didn't subscribed to the new list
about which people discuss here.
Ciao,
Oliver
Erik de Castro Lopo
> Well subscribing to yahoo-groups is an annoying thing.
> And that's the reason why I didn't subscribed to the new list
> about which people discuss here.
The yahoo groups are a PITA. Goolge groups is significantly
better.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then
you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I
have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two
ideas." -- George Bernard Shaw
Martin Jambon
>> 2) Skipping all the unnecessary "language geekiness" stuff
>
> And that cannot be done by hand so that we have to split the community?
Having to do things by hand is never really a good sign.
Seriously, subscribing to a mailing-list is a one-time operation, while
deleting messages is a daily thing. O(1) wins over O(n), that's all.
Martin
--
Martin Jambon
http://martin.jambon.free.fr
_______________________________________________
ls-ocaml-de...@m-e-leypold.de
Martin Jambon <martin...@ens-lyon.org> writes:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, ls-ocaml-de...@m-e-leypold.de wrote:
>
>>> 2) Skipping all the unnecessary "language geekiness" stuff
>>
>> And that cannot be done by hand so that we have to split the community?
>
> Having to do things by hand is never really a good sign.
Really? But how will the relevant mail be distributed to the
relevant lists? Aren't we deciding by hand to which list the mail goes
and isn't this prone to errors (i.e. "language geekiness" turning up
at your list and pedestrian mail turning up at caml-list)? And if the
splitting of mail by topics ("by hand") doesn't work well enough,
we'll all have to subscribe to two lists. How annoying.
> Seriously, subscribing to a mailing-list is a one-time operation,
> while deleting messages is a daily thing. O(1) wins over O(n), that's
> all.
I didn't complain about subscribing, but that there is another
list. Which will have (in my setup at least) to be sorted by the
incoming mail sorter, will have to have its own local folder/archive
and its own quirks concerning the mail headers (which are NEVER right
in lists). All that is work too.
But seriously: If you list is a success, we will have two mailing list
archives (that have to be searched for solutions) and I don't expect
we'll be able to avoid subscribing to both lists, because the scopes
of each lists can hardly be distinguished. ONE always wins over TWO,
that's all. :-)
And fragmentation hurts especially the newcomers who will often only
find and search one archive/list and then go away disapppointed (or
enraged).
And: Will the CAML weekly news editor also read you list?
Regards -- Markus
Martin Jambon
> Martin Jambon <martin...@ens-lyon.org> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, ls-ocaml-de...@m-e-leypold.de wrote:
>>
>>>> 2) Skipping all the unnecessary "language geekiness" stuff
>>>
>>> And that cannot be done by hand so that we have to split the community?
>>
>> Having to do things by hand is never really a good sign.
>
> Really? But how will the relevant mail be distributed to the
> relevant lists? Aren't we deciding by hand to which list the mail goes
> and isn't this prone to errors (i.e. "language geekiness" turning up
> at your list and pedestrian mail turning up at caml-list)? And if the
> splitting of mail by topics ("by hand") doesn't work well enough,
> we'll all have to subscribe to two lists. How annoying.
There are 1000 readers per message but only one author. To me it seems
fair that the author of a message spends approximately 1000 times more
effort than it takes to read and delete the message.
>> Seriously, subscribing to a mailing-list is a one-time operation,
>> while deleting messages is a daily thing. O(1) wins over O(n), that's
>> all.
>
> I didn't complain about subscribing, but that there is another
> list. Which will have (in my setup at least) to be sorted by the
> incoming mail sorter, will have to have its own local folder/archive
> and its own quirks concerning the mail headers (which are NEVER right
> in lists). All that is work too.
>
> But seriously: If you list is a success, we will have two mailing list
> archives (that have to be searched for solutions) and I don't expect
> we'll be able to avoid subscribing to both lists, because the scopes
> of each lists can hardly be distinguished. ONE always wins over TWO,
> that's all. :-)
>
> And fragmentation hurts especially the newcomers who will often only
> find and search one archive/list and then go away disapppointed (or
> enraged).
People search the whole web with their favorite search engine, don't they?
> And: Will the CAML weekly news editor also read you list?
I am not asking that from him, but yes he kindly proposed to do so. Thanks
again Alan!
Martin
--
Martin Jambon
http://martin.jambon.free.fr
_______________________________________________
ls-ocaml-de...@m-e-leypold.de
Martin Jambon <martin...@ens-lyon.org> writes:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, ls-ocaml-de...@m-e-leypold.de wrote:
>
>> Martin Jambon <martin...@ens-lyon.org> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, ls-ocaml-de...@m-e-leypold.de wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 2) Skipping all the unnecessary "language geekiness" stuff
>>>>
>>>> And that cannot be done by hand so that we have to split the community?
>>>
>>> Having to do things by hand is never really a good sign.
>>
>> Really? But how will the relevant mail be distributed to the
>> relevant lists? Aren't we deciding by hand to which list the mail goes
>> and isn't this prone to errors (i.e. "language geekiness" turning up
>> at your list and pedestrian mail turning up at caml-list)? And if the
>> splitting of mail by topics ("by hand") doesn't work well enough,
>> we'll all have to subscribe to two lists. How annoying.
>
> There are 1000 readers per message but only one author. To me it seems
> fair that the author of a message spends approximately 1000 times more
> effort than it takes to read and delete the message.
This is all nice and very moral, but: According to which criteria has
the writer to select the list? No language geekiness at your list,
that much is clear :-], but he/she can as well post almost anything to
caml-list according to the charter of caml-list. This doesn't bode
well for a distinctive sorting ...
>> And fragmentation hurts especially the newcomers who will often only
>> find and search one archive/list and then go away disapppointed (or
>> enraged).
>
> People search the whole web with their favorite search engine, don't they?
More Googleization at work. I dislike it. The internet is not only the
web. Which brings me to another point against Google groups: There is
no downloadable archive of messages (say in mbox format) which one can
download and index/search locally by the program of ones
choice. Basically all messages (as a whole) are locked into Google for
the rest of time and every time one wants to find anything, one also
furthers Googles business. At the long run a dear price to pay for a
"free service".
>> And: Will the CAML weekly news editor also read you list?
>
> I am not asking that from him, but yes he kindly proposed to do
> so. Thanks again Alan!
Good. IMHO that rather upgrades the status of the new list.
Regards -- Markus
Nathaniel Gray
create specialized lists for small communities in the past and they've
never worked out. At best, nobody subscribed. At worst, they caused
confusion and redundancy, making it look like an issue had died when
in fact it had moved to another list.
IMHO this kind of thing is only necessary when a community grows too
large for a single list, like, say, Linux users or Java programmers.
We aren't there yet (unfortunately).
But hey, it's a free internet, so best of luck.
Cheers,
-n8
--
>>>-- Nathaniel Gray -- Caltech Computer Science ------>
>>>-- Mojave Project -- http://mojave.cs.caltech.edu -->
Jon Harrop
> That's what happens in practice. But no, the ocaml-beginners list is
> described as a beginners' forum. Why would anyone else subscribe?
Because their products are aimed at OCaml beginners? ;-)
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
OCaml for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists