From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15B6B7EE49 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 08:31:45 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of adrien@notk.org) identity=pra; client-ip=91.121.71.147; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="adrien@notk.org"; x-sender="adrien@notk.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of adrien@notk.org designates 91.121.71.147 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=91.121.71.147; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="adrien@notk.org"; x-sender="adrien@notk.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@nautica.notk.org) identity=helo; client-ip=91.121.71.147; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="adrien@notk.org"; x-sender="postmaster@nautica.notk.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aq4AAPleMVJbeUeTl2dsb2JhbABbgz+DfL0UgSMWDgEBAQEBCBYHPIIlAQEFIyQyEAsYAgIFEw4CAg8FGB0BExOIBqtwhAuOAYEpjkIHgmk0gQADl3gBjEKIVDo X-IPAS-Result: Aq4AAPleMVJbeUeTl2dsb2JhbABbgz+DfL0UgSMWDgEBAQEBCBYHPIIlAQEFIyQyEAsYAgIFEw4CAg8FGB0BExOIBqtwhAuOAYEpjkIHgmk0gQADl3gBjEKIVDo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,888,1371074400"; d="scan'208";a="26563028" Received: from nautica.notk.org ([91.121.71.147]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 12 Sep 2013 08:31:44 +0200 Received: by nautica.notk.org (Postfix, from userid 1003) id EE3FCC009; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 08:31:43 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 08:31:43 +0200 From: Adrien Nader To: Gour Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Message-ID: <20130912063143.GA2701@notk.org> References: <20130910230928.2d51cd39@atmarama.noip.me> <20130911052437.GA9514@notk.org> <20130911101457.3f756b68@atmarama.noip.me> <20130911181737.GA3764@notk.org> <20130911213106.7fa73539@atmarama.noip.me> <20130911195320.GB20117@notk.org> <20130911224117.5f1a3df4@atmarama.noip.me> <20130911210103.GA29283@notk.org> <20130912074426.1c4f057b@atmarama.noip.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130912074426.1c4f057b@atmarama.noip.me> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: OCaml vs Ada and/or GUI options On Thu, Sep 12, 2013, Gour wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:01:03 +0200 > Adrien Nader wrote: > > > I quite strongly disagree. That developers have to become packagers > > for Windows and Mac OS X has been an unfortunate fact. It doesn't > > prove anything about the stability of a software. > > I also strongly disagree... > > GTK is mostly installed by default on Linux OS, but not on Windows and > Mac OS X, so if Windows is supposed to be counted as supported platform, > whose duty is to prepare package for? > > As far as Mac OS is concerned, port is even not finished, so no need to > discuss support for that platform. > > Otoh, you can visit http://qt-project.org/downloads and the page speaks > for itself about the level of supported platforms between GTK & Qt. I consider distributing binaries a failure: the failure to have source code than can be easily and properly built on or for the corresponding platform. For C++ (and OCaml) you have ABI-compatibility issues because of toolchain changes. Incompatibilities are only waiting to happen. That said, I fully get your point but talking about prebuilt binaries is not the right way to measure portability imho. :) -- Adrien Nader