From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA32197; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:20:00 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA32477 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:19:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.181]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3ECJuYM018073 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:19:57 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp116-94.lns1.syd2.internode.on.net [150.101.116.94]) by smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i3ECJlZq009891; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:49:48 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: GODI vs. Ocamake From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Nicolas Cannasse Cc: "Brandon J. Van Every" , caml-list In-Reply-To: <005e01c421f5$2dd45210$ef01a8c0@warp> References: <005e01c421f5$2dd45210$ef01a8c0@warp> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1081945187.20677.710.camel@pelican> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 14 Apr 2004 22:19:47 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocamake:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 cannasse:01 binary-only:01 cmi's:01 librairies:01 compilations:01 cobol:01 9660:01 glebe:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 recompile:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 323 On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 17:50, Nicolas Cannasse wrote: > Other way of thinking is : what do we need in order to get binary-only > distributions ? OCaml have a bytecode interpreter, so why we can't release > libraries simply as a big CMA ( and some CMI's ). Answer : because the > bytecode binary format is very strict, and not suited for this kind of usage > (adding a function in the interface of a sub library needs to recompile all > top librairies ). Who cares? I've worked on code where turnaround for compilations were: 1970's -- overnight (Fortran) 1980's -- 2-3 hours (Cobol/Pl1) 1990's -- 20-40 minutes (C/C++) 2000's -- 10-60 seconds (Ocaml) and that's working on large Mainframe (Cyber 70), Small mainframe (Facom), Medium Sun box, and 500MHz Pentium III, respectively. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners