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 TAA29860; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 19:07:11 +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 TAA29696 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 19:07:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fantods.com (fcy-1.soho.enteract.com [216.80.27.145]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id g75H79D03632 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 19:07:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 11813 invoked by uid 1000); 5 Aug 2002 17:05:31 -0000 From: fred@ontosys.com Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 12:05:31 -0500 Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Yet Another Compilation Question: lablgtk for windows + cygwin-mingw Message-ID: <20020805120530.A11782@ontosys.com> References: <20020805164038.A21811@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: <20020805164038.A21811@pauillac.inria.fr>; from xavier.leroy@inria.fr on Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 04:40:38PM +0200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 04:40:38PM +0200, Xavier Leroy wrote: > One last, general comment. (Climbing on my soapbox.) The GNU > compilers, OCaml, GTK. lablgtk, etc, are all software projects that > are developed primarily under Unix, and then ported to Windows. While > each of these ports are done carefully and with considerable ingenuity, > Windows is not Unix and minor differences or inconsistencies remain in > each port. These minor issues are usually workable when you use only > one port, but can become a real headache when you pile up port over > port over port. What I am coming at is that unless you like to suffer > and are ready to solve these issues yourself, it doesn't make much > sense to develop an OCaml+lablgtk+GTK program under Windows. I've been planning to build an interactive application with OCaml that will be deployed primarily on Windows, so I'd like to understand your warning better. 1. Is the risk just in developing (compiling, packaging) on Windows, or also in deploying to Windows? 2. What do you mean by "piling port after port"? Do you mean reworking the application to track changes as the various tools (GNU+OCaml+labltk+GTK) evolve in successive releases? Has this been a big problem in applications such as Unison? (Or any other broadly deployed OCaml app? I don't know of others.) 3. Is there some other GUI framework that you expect will entail less suffering than lablgtk+GTK? 4. As the porting problem applies to the GNU compilers and OCaml itself, are you warning us against developing OCaml applications for use on Windows? -- Fred Yankowski fred@ontosys.com tel: +1.630.879.1312 OntoSys, Inc PGP keyID: 7B449345 fax: +1.630.879.1370 www.ontosys.com 38W242 Deerpath Rd, Batavia, IL 60510-9461, USA ------------------- 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