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 MAA02566; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:27:53 +0100 (MET) 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 MAA03293 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:27:52 +0100 (MET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id fAQB32113325; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:03:03 +0100 (MET) Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id MAA02431; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:03:02 +0100 (MET) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:03:02 +0100 From: Xavier Leroy To: Jean-Marc Eber Cc: caml-list@inria.fr, Dmitry Bely Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml 3.03 alpha MinGW port Message-ID: <20011126120302.A1982@pauillac.inria.fr> References: <007301c17659$0ae17840$060000c0@N7YYB> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <007301c17659$0ae17840$060000c0@N7YYB>; from jeanmarc.eber@lexifi.com on Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 09:28:46AM +0100 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > I'm really not a specialist about this topic, but have now > (or in a near future) to choose between possible > Windows "technologies" (Visual C, Cygwin, MinGW) for > an OCaml program (only a console mode stuff in my case). > > Could anybody explain to me why a MinGW isn't *always* > preferable to a Cygwin one (use of the same compiler, GCC, > MinGW being more "direct" Windows without an indirection > layer, not speaking about licensing problems, etc....). The full Cygwin provides a rather complete Unix emulation, hence the OCaml Cygwin port supports the debugger, all of the Unix module, and (I believe) the LablGTK GUI -- all things that are missing in the OCaml MinGW port, if I remember correctly. > I understand well that the Caml Team wants probably to > maintain a MS C version of the OCaml implementation, > but wanted to ask the Team if they have some ideas about > the future of Cygwin/MinGW ports. Isn't a MinGW port, in > the medium term, preferable to a Cygwin one ? Or do I > miss a point ? The situation is quite simple, really: - We can't support three different Windows port of OCaml; the current two are already too much. - Every time I mention this fact on this list, we get replies of the form "I can't live without the Visual C based port of OCaml -- I'm doing real industrial work, and everything gcc-related is just amateur work" OR "I got a Windows machine because that's the company policy, but I really do all my work within the Cygwin environment and don't want to hear about anything else". Draw your own conclusions... - Xavier Leroy ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr