From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B02EBB84 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:12:19 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApABAP7PF0lDWxLCbmdsb2JhbACBdpIuPqt1hWKELINY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,575,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="31320697" Received: from ip67-91-18-194.z18-91-67.customer.algx.net (HELO server1.bertec.net) ([67.91.18.194]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 10 Nov 2008 15:12:18 +0100 Received: from kuba.bertec.net (kuba.bertec.net [192.168.2.16]) by server1.bertec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8782105735 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:12:16 -0500 (EST) From: Kuba Ober To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] WideStudio Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:12:13 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <200811071623.22910.jon@ffconsultancy.com> In-Reply-To: <200811071623.22910.jon@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811100912.14939.ober.14@osu.edu> X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 tarball:01 cvs:01 compiler:01 cheers:01 optimistic:98 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 compiles:01 caml-list:01 rds:02 codebase:96 codebase:96 seems:03 On Friday 07 November 2008, Jon Harrop wrote: > I was just perusing SourceForge and stumbled upon a popular software > package classed as being written partly in OCaml called WideStudio: > > http://www.widestudio.org > > This is apparently a cross platform IDE with a GUI toolkit that supports > several languages including OCaml. > > Has anyone heard of or used this? They use a me-too application framework, which is an achievement in itself -- a lot of work went into it, and it is cross-platform. They do have a "solid" history of source tarball releases, but their CVS repository has been created in 2006 and left untouched since. Perhaps they use internal source control, but that's quite unkosher for such a project. I've downloaded the sources to see how they are. It seems that "mechanical" porting to Qt would delete 30%+ code (tens of thousands of lines), and further refactoring would perhaps slash it all by 50% total. If I were optimistic, given a good design groundwork, a reduction by 2/3rds of the code size would not be unthinkable. The codebase compiles using a C++ compiler and would be typical of a WINAPI or X11-era mindset. It reads like MFC source code, style-wise. I'd imagine it to be a major pain to work with if you're "spoiled" with C++, as opposed to "C/C++", which is neither C nor real C++. Some of their features may be worth replicating, but I wouldn't go near that codebase with a long stick, simply because it has bitrotted in spite of being actively maintained. Their design has bitrotted, that is. I can't of course convince anyone of choosing vaporware (in-progress Camelia) over a project that's obviously maintained and has some userbase ;) The above are just my opinions. Cheers, Kuba