On 2/13/07, Richard Conroy <richard.conroy / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/07, Clifford Heath <no / spam.please.net> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > That's funny. Coulda sworn that my Debian package listing contains
> > one hundred and forty five maintained ocaml packages.
>
> 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.
>

And you have to love the Ruby community 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.

TwP