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 PAA10831; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:41:25 +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 PAA12249 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:41:24 +0200 (MET DST) X-SPAM-Warning: Sending machine is listed in blackholes.five-ten-sg.com Received: from gatekeeper.elmer.external.excelhustler.com (gatekeeper.excelhustler.com [68.99.114.105]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i7VDfMXv023247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:41:23 +0200 Received: from chatterbox.elmer.internal.excelhustler.com (unknown [192.168.0.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN "chatterbox.elmer.internal.excelhustler.com", Issuer "excelhustler.com" (not verified)) by gatekeeper.elmer.external.excelhustler.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE281560DF; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:41:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chatterbox.elmer.internal.excelhustler.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2D8C560DE; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:41:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from chatterbox.elmer.internal.excelhustler.com ([192.168.0.12]) by localhost (chatterbox [192.168.0.12]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id 00972-05; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:41:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: from wile.internal.excelhustler.com (wile.internal.excelhustler.com [192.168.1.34]) by chatterbox.elmer.internal.excelhustler.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 541B0560DB; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:41:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: by wile.internal.excelhustler.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4DB4B3D07E; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:41:18 -0500 (CDT) From: John Goerzen To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Cross-compiling OCaml Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:41:17 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 Cc: "Brandon J. Van Every" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200408310841.18106.jgoerzen@complete.org> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at excelhustler.com X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41348002.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 2004:99 brandon:99 woodyatt:01 mingw:01 objecting:01 powerpc:01 netbsd:01 netbsd:01 bootstrapped:01 cough:01 cough:01 persist:01 stupid:01 python:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Tuesday 31 August 2004 04:05 am, Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > james woodyatt wrote: > > I'd rather that the Windows-centric guys on the list put their time > > into good Windows support for Ocaml, > > No problem. As I said, I realize Linux / mingw guys aren't into > this. > > I'm just objecting to the statement that Linux cross-compilation > support "would indeed be a great great additional functionality." As Well, let's look at that, because I believe you are missing the point. Who ever said that cross-compilation support would only involve running=20 a compiler on x86 Linux to target x86 Windows? It could involve=20 running a compiler on x86 Linux to target arm Zaurus, or m68k Linux, or=20 x86 FreeBSD, or amd64 Linux. Or running a compiler on PowerPC NetBSD=20 to target Alpha NetBSD. Or whatever else. Believe it or not, this *is* useful. In some cases, the target platform=20 does not have enough resources to support a development environment=20 (for instance, Arm-based PDAs). In other cases, the target platform=20 may not be available for the developers. Or, it may be excruciatingly=20 slow. Or perhaps it is being bootstrapped and programs are being=20 compiled for it for the first time. Or perhaps it just sucks to work=20 with (*cough* Windows *cough*). > I think the reason you should care is because Windows is a big > platform with a lot of users. If you want to see the use of OCaml Why should that make us care? Why must you persist in measuring the=20 success or failure of everything on pure user count? I would say that=20 is a pretty damn poor way to measure success, if not a completely=20 stupid one. > grow, so that there's more OCaml stuff available for all of us, and > more paying OCaml jobs, then growth on the Windows platform is > important.=20 In that case, please explain the popularity of Perl, Python, sed, awk,=20 Tcl, and Bourne shell. All of which have had for a long time, or=20 continue to have, roughly the same level of support for Windows as=20 OCaml does. Or less. > Of course, some people don't have a platform-neutral world view.=20 Actually, I think you'll find most people here *DO* have a=20 platform-neutral "world view". > Some people want Windows to die, more than anything else. My own > view is I just want platforms to be rendered irrelevant. In the real > world that means various engineering compromises, because platforms > aren't the same. =46ine, but somebody HAS TO DO THE WORK to port things to such a=20 different, expensive, and problematic platform. It's a lot easier to=20 port Linux code to FreeBSD than to Windows. And a lot cheaper. > Some of the archives I've crossed indicate that Cf may have no users > at all, not just a lack of interest from Windows users. Have you > achieved a core of Linux users yet? Nobody's going to bother to port > stuff to Windows when the library hasn't proven its utility. So you are saying that nobody on Windows is willing to try something=20 new? That they're only interested in "proven" technologies? That it's=20 only useful if it's popular? In that case, you've convinced me to write off the Windows platform for=20 MissingLib. Thank you. > Also, it helps to have a Sourceforge CVS project or the equivalent. > http://www.wetware.com/jhw/src/ is digging. You may actually be a > very effective organizer, with wonderful source code. But it doesn't > look organized, it isn't publically indexed, it isn't publically > source controlled, it isn't accessible in the way Sourceforge > projects are. Also you have no webpage or mailing list for your > project. That's right. It's accessible EASIER than SF projects are. It took me=20 about 2 seconds to get to what I'd want and download it. With SF, it takes a lot longer. First, I have to hope that SourceForge=20 is up at the time. Next, I have to find the appropriate project page,=20 click on Files, wait for that to load. Now, I get to click on a file=20 to download and have yet ANOTHER page to wait to load. There, I have=20 to select a mirror, and finally I might possibly get a download if that=20 mirror is reachable at the time. I think that offering a simple tarball with the source is just fine. > > and frankly=97 it's not like it really bugs > > me. It just tells me that Windows-centric guys don't like my code. > > That's fine. I don't like theirs all that much either. > > Your conclusion doesn't fit the available data. The available data > is your project has hardly gotten off the ground. You have a > recruitment problem. You haven't solved it, because you haven't > established basic infrastructure for such recruitment. Although, according to you, the problem is that Windows people won't use=20 something unless it's already popular. So it's an insoluble problem=20 for him, isn't it? > Should I fault you for the public administration of your project?=20 Oh please, tell us what is so wrong with posting the source code easily=20 accessible as a tarball. Is it that Windows people can't figure out=20 how to use Winzip? =2D-=20 John Goerzen Author, Foundations of Python Network Programming http://www.complete.org/pynet ------------------- 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