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 SAA08715; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:07:48 +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 SAA08722 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:07:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ntlg.sibnet.ru (dns.sibnet.ru [217.70.96.34]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g5CG7eb10826 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:07:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from sibnet.ru (tlg5-ppp82.sibnet.ru [217.70.98.213]) by ntlg.sibnet.ru (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA21850 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:07:33 +0400 (MSD) Received: by sibnet.ru id m17IAdH-001En5C; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:06:03 +0700 (NOVST) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:06:03 +0700 From: Max Kirillov To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Unix.file_descr -> int ??? Message-ID: <20020612230603.A1654@max.home> Mail-Followup-To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <20020611213158.A680@max.home> <20020611174527.A14450@pauillac.inria.fr> <15622.64332.518339.259345@is002254.saclay.cea.fr> <20020612102102.C26939@pauillac.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20020612102102.C26939@pauillac.inria.fr>; from xavier.leroy@inria.fr on Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:21:02AM +0200 X-Sender: Max Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:21:02AM +0200, Xavier Leroy wrote: <...> > WARNING! Stereotype alert! So, let's see, according to you, the > virtues of type abstraction should be reserved to academia, while the > "real world" (whatever the #$@%@ this means) is concerned about dirty hacks > and nothing else? What are you going to tell us next? Women can't > drive and men can't raise children? :-) > > I can assure you that in an "industrial" programming setting, > guaranteeing (some amount of) Unix-Windows source-code portability is > a *lot* more important than the marginal Unix hacks you describe. Why so strong? Unix is Unix, Win32 is Win32. That's different system, and they both have specific things. Nobody calls ACL or multi-threaded file storage (or how they called), or DDE, "marginal Windows hacks". So why do you call some things "marginal hacks" just because MS didn't bother to implement them? If you want throw away all of Unix weirdness, you better should throw away Unix itself, or your come into risk of turning it into DOS. That's not good to use under-system just because it's "right way". I think that there is a lot of things which are not portable. And there are a lot of progs not intended to be portable. Btw, Unix module contains tc* functions, with all their non-potrability. Why did you included them? If asked, I would say that there should be module IO, presenting the higher abstraction level for interaction with the system, and the lower-level modules Unix, Win32, and so on... The first requires some design, but is better than be sticked to castrated unix. Max. ------------------- 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