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 SAA26730; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:45:53 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA26722 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:45:52 +0100 (MET) Received: from mrwall.kal.com (mrwall.kal.com [194.193.14.236]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with SMTP id f1EHjpP16737; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:45:51 +0100 (MET) Received: from mrwall.kal.com [194.193.14.236] (HELO localhost) by mrwall.kal.com (AltaVista Mail V2.0J/2.0J BL25J listener) id 0000_004f_3a8a_c4a6_8d48; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:47:18 +0000 Received: from somewhere by smtpxd Message-ID: <3145774E67D8D111BE6E00C0DF418B663F5B7F@nt.kal.com> From: Dave Berry To: Chris Hecker , Xavier Leroy Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: [Caml-list] RE: OCaml for Windows: a suggestion Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:50:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Hecker [mailto:checker@d6.com] > A couple of suggestions were made for the Windows OCaml port. > I disagree with both. > 1. making the port a gcc port rather than an msvc port I agree that most production programmers use MSVC. The question is whether they/we need to compile the compiler, and whether they/we will be willing to install GCC and Cygwin to build the system (as opposed to using it). My personal opinion is that I'd prefer MSVC, to avoid cluttering my machine with other applications, but if this restricts the functionality of the system, then I'd be willing to install Cygwin. If I didn't already own a copy of MSVC on my home machine, I might have a different opinion. > 2. moving most of the runtime code into DLLs > > This would be fine as an option, but there has to be a way to > make a standalone exe that only depends on default installed > Win32 dlls (user32.dll, kernel32.dll, advapi32.dll, > ws2_32.dll, etc.). If I have to send a bunch of dlls along > with my exe for anybody to use my program then I'm _MUCH_ > less likely to use ocaml for anything real. My experience is that most production code builds an InstallShield or similar installer, so users don't see all the files that are installed. Even if you just use a zip file, all you need to do is to put the DLLs in the same folder as the executable. If the aim is to install a system-wide OCaml runtime DLL (and Cygwin, if needed), then that is more complicated. You can run into versioning problems, if two applications are built to use different versions of the runtime. You also need a scheme for supplying the DLLs, and only installing them if they aren't already installed. Probably the simplest way to do this is to provide boiler-plate installer code that people can adapt to build their own installers. > My suggestions are the following, > ... > 3. Generics. I believe OCaml supports functors, i.e. parameterised modules. Did you have something else in mind? Dave. ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr