[clean-list] Re: Rebranding Clean

[jerzy.karczmarczuk at info.unicaen.fr]

Richard A. O'Keefe writes: 

> I suggest that renaming the language may be a waste of time.
...
> Carlos Aya is right:  up to date complete documentation is far more  
> important.

A few more remarks.
I think we should realize that neither Rinus nor - perhaps - other people
who would *decide* to change the name, took part in this exchange. So, the
exterior advice collection, all those Wabi-Sabi etc., might perhaps be
useful for *another* language, but Clean won't change... 

The problem of finding things related to Clean is the documentation sure,
but I found that in case of trouble, this list is really helpful!
Unfortunately, this is good for people who know what they want. In order
to spread the word, something more is needed. 

How many papers based on Clean have been presented at ICFP, POPL, etc?
PADL workshop? FDPE workshop (education), ... many other meetings?
This year I have seen that Rinus Plasmeijer was in Freiburg. I have seen
him a few more times, but seldom, and, concerning young guys who would form
the "social basis" of the Clean Church, well, where are they? 

There was one paper on functional polyginization of surfaces based on
Clean on IFL 2000 (Aachen) [Zörner, Koopman, Plasmeijer, van Eekelen], but
simultaneously was a paper of Simon Peyton Jones on transporting the Clean
library to Haskell, which had much stronger influence, people commented,
OK, now what was quite cute and powerful in Clean, will be accessible in
Haskell, we can forget Clean. The project didn't finally arrive to a useful
stage, but - but - you see what I mean! 

On PADL (appl. of decl. progr.) workshops I presented two  contributions,
once about the generation of images/textures using functional techniques,
and another time, about the simulating of musical instruments using
co-recursive algorithms. Twice I got a question from the participants:
"why do you use a language nobody in the FP community is really interested
in developing? Why Clean and not Haskell, which is "standard"?"
My only answer was that I do not believe in this "nobody". And the language
defends itself: efficiency of unboxed lists, system interfacing.  But, in
fact, I still wait to see more talks... 

Then, of course, we would have infinitely more hits on Google, etc., as
well. 

Jerzy Karczmarczuk