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 LAA05652; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:24:51 +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 LAA05810 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:24:50 +0100 (MET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g0FAOmb07899; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:24:48 +0100 (MET) Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA05505; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:24:47 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:24:47 +0100 From: Xavier Leroy To: "Walter B. Rader" Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] More OCaml+windowing system questions Message-ID: <20020115112447.A5389@pauillac.inria.fr> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from wrader@OCF.Berkeley.EDU on Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 01:40:16AM -0800 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > Question #2: How portable *is* OCaml? I see that binaries > are available for Linux, MS Windows, and Macintosh. Has > there been success in porting OCaml to other platforms? If > not the native-code compiler, at least the byte-code compiler > and interpreter? The byte-code system works on essentially every Unix variant out there, and the native-code compiler is supported for a dozen processor / Unix variant combinations. For a detailed list, see http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/portability.html So, OCaml is supported under Unix (including but not limited to Linux), Windows, MacOS, and BeOS to some extent. Other operating systems (VMS, IBM's mainframe OSes, etc) haven't been tried, but they are getting extinct :-) > Question #3: As mentioned previously, I will support running > byte-code applications that use the windowing system. I > would like to be able to load each in its own process space, > so that the OS scheduler can handle scheduling. > Is there a "good" (efficient, elegant, etc.) portable way to > handle communication between the windowing system process and > the application process(es)? There's a built-in marshaler that lets you exchange complex data structures over pipes or sockets. There is no standard remote function call infrastructure yet, but it's not hard to build one on top of the marshaler; see for instance what the Unison team did. - 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