Alex Bradley wrote: >I respect what Nicolas has to say about OCAML (I've >programmed in Prolog for three years). Indeed, the speed with which >MTASC was written is a testimony to this. However this has its own pros >and cons. If more than one person was working on MTASC I believe it >would have many more features than it currently does, and there would be >a much greater dialog between the authors and the community. The choice >of OCAML retricted this (though so did Nicolas' choice not to open up >the development tree). Other than Ralf's work with HamTASC, there have >been no other user contributions to MTASC (this may also be so that >MTASC can be dual-licensed?). > I hope you are right but I think the problem might be more fundamental. Screenweaver for example, is written in C++, a 'common' language. Still, there is very few people working on the code base. It seems that there's a tendency that projects stay 'exclusively owned' by their initiators even though they're open source, regardless of what language they're written in? Perhaps the 'domain knowledge' treshold is just too high.
Cheers, Edwin _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
