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 DAA16345; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 03:40:17 +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 DAA16670 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 03:40:16 +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 i3F1eCYM000307 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 03:40:13 +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 i3F1dJZq032148; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:09:19 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] recompiling bytecode From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: "Brandon J. Van Every" Cc: caml-list In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1081993158.20677.948.camel@pelican> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 15 Apr 2004 11:39:19 +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 sourceforge:01 2004:99 brandon:99 compilations:01 cobol:01 ocamlopt:01 9660:01 glebe:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 recompile:01 recompile:01 bytecode:01 interfaces:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 362 On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 04:21, Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > skaller wrote: > > 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) > > Because you are not compiling programs large enough and often enough for > this to become sheer hell? No, I recompile every 20 seconds when I'm fixing bugs. True, my current project only has around 60 ml files. I certainly HAVE worked on systems where compile time was an issue. That is the point of the data above: I know all about it. My build system does have 'dependency analysis'. Its a simple linear order. I find that is perfectly acceptable. If I change the parser it's a small pain, since it's at the head of the list :D But there is very little choice. Ocamlopt requires the linear ordering to transmit optimisation information forward. So you can't just recompile modules based on dependency on interfaces (as you can in C). And I'm ecstatic! Ocaml is so fast! -- 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