From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27146BB83 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 06:34:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7J4YRUb022370 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 06:34:27 +0200 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA29691 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 06:34:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ash25e.internode.on.net (ash25e.internode.on.net [203.16.214.182]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7J4YPT0022338 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 06:34:26 +0200 Received: from rosella (ppp14-47.lns2.syd7.internode.on.net [59.167.14.47]) by ash25e.internode.on.net (8.13.6/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k7J4Y4cK052700; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 14:04:04 +0930 (CST) (envelope-from skaller@users.sourceforge.net) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] making ocaml mainstream From: skaller To: Tomasz Jamroszczak Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 14:34:03 +1000 Message-Id: <1155962043.28068.40.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 tomasz:01 ocaml:01 debugging:01 debugger:01 debugging:01 compilation:01 unix:01 emacs:01 2006:98 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 imho:01 caml-list:01 slightly:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 03:24 +0200, Tomasz Jamroszczak wrote: > I've been playing for a second time with Ocaml for a time now and I've > got some insights in what could make the language more popular. IMHO: the lack of debugging support on Windows is an illusion. Ocaml code just works (TM), you don't need a debugger. A couple of debugging prints is usually enough to find problems. I never use debuggers. Debuggers are for assembler geeks and would-be assembler geeks writing low level C code :) I think this is a matter of education -- you're looking for a tool you don't need in the first place. As to IDE support -- well it is much the same. I'm happy enough with a text editor and command line compilation with a script. It is only slightly more painful on Windows than on Unix. However I think you're right that a Visual Studio plugin is the way to go. No one familiar with the VS editor would ever want to learn a horrendous monstrosity like Emacs .. let alone Vim's archaic terminal editing concepts (ducks for cover!) In an industrial setting, having Ocaml as part of a VS project would be winner. -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net