[ocaml-biz] what slow OCaml is worth

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Brian Hurt wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> >
> > This came from an argument on caml-list about what OCaml
> > would be worth,
> > if it were 3 to 10 times slower than it is now.
>
> Signifigantly less, IMHO.  One of the advantages Ocaml has in
> the pitches
> I've made is that you get this whole set of features without
> sacrificing performance.

Yes, I do think that's got to be a core message.  Right there with
industrial scale-up.

> > - is baroque and difficult to learn compared to Python
>
> Only if you're comming from imperitive/OO languages.

Yes, and 'everyone' in the mainstream is, so the point stands.

> - Choice of how to execute the resultant code- interpreted, virtual
> machine, and compiled to native.  All of these have advantages and
> disadvantages, even ignoring performance.  For example, I can
> distribute a
> native application to customers and they don't need Ocaml
> installed to run it.

Yes, "you have a choice" is an important sales point.

> I don't see Python having a serious edge over Java in the language
> department.  What big thing can Python do that Java can't?

Python is dynamically typed, interpreted, and not as verbose as Java.
The learning curve is rather low, people master it readily.  Hence why
our marketing phrase was "simple, elegant, powerful."

> One of the advantages Python had, and Perl had before it, was
> that they were scripting languages. [...]
>
> This particular market is more "permable" than other markets for
> programming languages, in that it's more ameneable to
> experimentation with new languages.

Agreed... so I'm wondering if OCaml has any provable utility in the
scripting language space, or if it would be a mistake to try to
concentrate on that market segment.  It's such a crowded field and OCaml
is not the best scripting language out there.  OCaml may be a good
*prototyping* language, but that's not quite the same thing as a good
scripting language.  Most scripts aren't really prototypes, they're
throwaways.

The market segment I'm personally interested in is high performance
computing, ala 3D graphics and AI.  Things that people typically use C++
for, or might use Lisp for.

I think OCaml should also chase the "enterprise applications" market, as
that's where the strong type safety should yield its major advantages
over C++, Java, and C#.

> We can't get 0.2% of the population without getting 0.1% of the
> population.  We can't get 10% market share without first
> getting 1% market share.

True, but you have to state up front that you are *DISSATISFIED* with
the 0.1% market share.  I have no problem with defining milestones for
getting from A to Z.  But to accept "we're at A, and that's ok" is
failure.  Many languages are failures, in this sense.  Lisp, for
instance, probably got stuck somewhere around M.


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

When no one else sells courage, supply and demand take hold.