User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Semantic patching with Coccinelle

Semantic patching with Coccinelle

Posted Jan 22, 2009 4:11 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165)
In reply to: Semantic patching with Coccinelle by Yorick
Parent article: Semantic patching with Coccinelle

Is OCaml standard now? Last I heard it was defined by its current implementation. Wikipedia seems to suggest that remains true.

A formal definition and multiple implementations help to reassure coders that time spent learning the language and writing reams of code in it won't end up wasted when, e.g., developers of the sole implementation lose interest and leave it orphaned. (NB: I am not saying I expect this to happen to OCaml.) It is precisely this quality, and nothing about the details of the language design, that make apt Ms. Henson's remark about Coccinelle's potential developer base.


(Log in to post comments)

Semantic patching with Coccinelle

Posted Jan 22, 2009 6:10 UTC (Thu) by shimei (guest, #54776) [Link]

I'm not going to take a side on whether OCaml limits the development base or not, but I don't think it'd be the lack of standardization stopping it in any case. Look at languages like python and ruby (or, *gasp*, PHP) that are quite popular and practical. None of those are standardized in any meaningful way, but they're doing just fine. Then look at a language like Haskell that has standardization and multiple high-quality implementations, but still sits on the sidelines of the software industry.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds