From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 773BB7EE80 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 23:13:06 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of jon@ffconsultancy.com) identity=pra; client-ip=84.93.230.227; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-sender="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of jon@ffconsultancy.com) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=84.93.230.227; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-sender="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@avasout01.plus.net) identity=helo; client-ip=84.93.230.227; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-sender="postmaster@avasout01.plus.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlgCAFrWTFFUXebjgWdsb2JhbABDiC+9M4FnFg4BARYmKIIkAQEEAQgCGVYFCAMCCRoCJgICGSMbAgQeBYd+Cq93kiuBI41vB4ItgRMDji+cQw X-IPAS-Result: AlgCAFrWTFFUXebjgWdsb2JhbABDiC+9M4FnFg4BARYmKIIkAQEEAQgCGVYFCAMCCRoCJgICGSMbAgQeBYd+Cq93kiuBI41vB4ItgRMDji+cQw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,895,1355094000"; d="scan'208";a="7528366" Received: from avasout01.plus.net ([84.93.230.227]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2013 23:13:05 +0100 Received: from XPS ([46.208.152.44]) by avasout01 with smtp id EmD31l0020xjwkW01mD4qw; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:13:05 +0000 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=HO4d4PRv c=1 sm=1 a=wENtliGTsFWVwbXJfEkUuw==:17 a=PcxEMZpPzg4A:10 a=Xub9RBUEA-sA:10 a=Kvk-SOs2Z7YA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=r2vSxAw-AAAA:8 a=fP-f-03R_oAA:10 a=owVaPgm7_nONdmilXI0A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=wENtliGTsFWVwbXJfEkUuw==:117 X-AUTH: jdh302:2500 Reply-To: From: "Jon Harrop" To: =?utf-8?Q?'Daniel_B=C3=BCnzli'?= Cc: References: <878v5lca2c.fsf@li195-236.members.linode.com> <9813208.KJBpLPkkvX@groupon> <069c01ce25ab$a9cf3f10$fd6dbd30$@ffconsultancy.com> <06b901ce25ca$cc415be0$64c413a0$@ffconsultancy.com> <514B81CB.3070103@etorok.net> <01a501ce2725$f3e530c0$dbaf9240$@ffconsultancy.com> <01ba01ce2736$e2973280$a7c59780$@ffconsultancy.com> <6C6F2DEFCC284DE9BB3ECC2A62FC8BD6@erratique.ch> In-Reply-To: <6C6F2DEFCC284DE9BB3ECC2A62FC8BD6@erratique.ch> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:13:22 -0000 Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. Message-ID: <01c401ce274a$785ff1e0$691fd5a0$@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGbDIvrQFC0hqYsznfX8ZeLYj+sAAGro33jAwUx/+kB+r723QI62GKhARawPEkBnOjUHAH3h8mSAoXCGLwBsUenxgGCBCflAkVqpICYa+w2QA== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Re: Haskell vs OCaml > Since it was using OpenGL it wasn't "100% pure OCaml code". How so? > And apparently your bindings to OpenGL were somehow broken. Why do you assume that I wrote my own OpenGL bindings? I used the pre-exist= ing LablGL bindings that were not only the defacto-standard for OCaml+OpenG= L at the time (i.e. OCaml's most widely tested OpenGL bindings) but had bee= n written by Jacques Garrigue, one of the authors of OCaml itself. > One other track could be that the OpenGL drivers of your users > were buggy, which is really not uncommon.=20=20 Why do "buggy drivers" affect 80% of our users when we write our software i= n 100% OCaml and 0% of our customers when we write our software in 100% F#? > To sum up, your comment made it seem like the thing to blame > for your own failures was OCaml itself, I doubt this is the right > culprit in that case. So the stuff all around OCaml that we used only because we were using OCaml= was to blame and not OCaml itself? Cheers, Jon.