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=2.0 required=5.0 tests=DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04CACBBAF for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:27:36 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArMBAAPQIknUnw4UlGdsb2JhbACCPJEcAQEBAQkLCAkRA78Dgnk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,627,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="20104405" Received: from pih-relay08.plus.net ([212.159.14.20]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 18 Nov 2008 23:27:35 +0100 Received: from [87.115.4.231] (helo=leper.local) by pih-relay08.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1L2Z2l-0006ZT-0d for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:27:35 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:30:03 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <1227002178.6170.25.camel@Blefuscu> In-Reply-To: <1227002178.6170.25.camel@Blefuscu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811182330.03947.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: 1ba484121ed79fc2cf2267997c92c0cb X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 printf:01 printf:01 striking:98 frog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 modules:02 modules:02 hierarchies:03 module:03 hierarchy:03 hierarchy:03 library:03 On Tuesday 18 November 2008 09:56:18 David Teller wrote: > Now, we've decided that our current hierarchy is perhaps somewhat clumsy > and that it may benefit from some reworking. Before we proceed, we'd > like some feedback from the community... I only have one major concern: you say "with the large number of modules involved, we would need a hierarchy of modules" but the number of modules involved is tiny (a few dozen in OCaml compared to tens or even hundreds of thousands in any industrial-strength language) because OCaml has very few libraries. Yet your module hierarchies are already enormous and often require a longer sequence of modules to reach simple functionality than is required in a comparatively-huge library like .NET. To me, the most striking example is printf which is just printf in F#, Printf.printf in OCaml and is now Text.Printf.printf in OCaml+Batteries. Surely this is a step in the wrong direction? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e