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 WAA00722; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:36:41 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 WAA31556 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:36:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3EKbAjq018303; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:37:10 +0200 Received: from bourg.inria.fr (bourg.inria.fr [128.93.11.100]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA01233; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:36:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from starynke by bourg.inria.fr with local (Exim 4.31) id 1BDr6g-0004FG-Hv; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:35:38 +0200 Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:35:38 +0200 To: "Brandon J. Van Every" , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] recompiling bytecode Message-ID: <20040414203538.GA16279@bourg.inria.fr> References: <1081945187.20677.710.camel@pelican> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: Basile Starynkevitch X-Miltered: at nez-perce by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 basile:01 basile:01 2004:99 brandon:99 2004:99 cannasse:01 binary-only:01 compilations:01 cobol:01 compiles:01 gcc:01 bootstrap:01 gcc:01 bootstrap:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 355 On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 11:21:01AM -0700, Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > skaller wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 17:50, Nicolas Cannasse wrote: > > > > > Other way of thinking is : what do we need in order to get > > > binary-only distributions ? [....] > > > [re: having to recompile everything] > > > > Who cares? > > > > I've worked on code where turnaround for compilations were: > > > > 1970's -- overnight (Fortran) > > 1980's -- 2-3 hours (Cobol/Pl1) > > 1990's -- 20-40 minutes (C/C++) > > 2000's -- 10-60 seconds (Ocaml) > > Because you are not compiling programs large enough and often enough for > this to become sheer hell? Even if Ocaml compiles much faster that Gcc, compile time still counts a bit. Consider for example the compile time of the compiler compiling itself: with ocaml: make world opt bootstrap is around 10 minutes with gcc: make bootstrap is about an hour. (the x86 machines I work on are at home 2Ghz, at work 1GHz). And there is something more that compilation time: correctly handling the package dependencies, which has been discussed a lot on this list recently. Actually, compilation times still count (but there are features in Ocaml, notably its module system, which help a lot - compare Ocaml module compilation to C++ template compilation for example). Regards -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH -- basile dot starynkevitch at inria dot fr Project cristal.inria.fr - INRIA Rocquencourt http://cristal.inria.fr/~starynke --- all opinions are only mine ------------------- 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