build, distribution, data and metadata

build, distribution, data and metadata

[Cristian Baboi]

Hello!

I joined this list in an attempt to learn OCAML.
I don't yet know the language, the libraries or the building and  
distribution policies.
In these two days since I subscribed to the list I've seen a long  
discussion about the lack of standards.

I have a few remarks regarding these matters and I thought to share them:

- metadata is just data
- the make files are written in a well defined language
- rumors say ocaml is good at writing translators
- make files are not enough
- make files might not be portable
- installing is just a form of copying software from one environment to  
another
- I don't like the mess created by the MS Windows Registry and the plague  
of linux configuration files
- I like the freepascal approach http://www.freepascal.org/advantage.var:

"No Makefiles Unlike most programming languages, Pascal does not need  
Makefiles. You can save huge amounts of time, the compiler just figures  
out itself which files need to be recompiled."

"Distribution independence (Linux) As a result of this, software compiled  
by the Linux version of Free Pascal runs on any Linux distribution, making  
it much, much, easier to make your software support multiple Linux  
distributions."

So, my suggestion is to agree on a *language* in which to express the  
build/distribution/whatever and then implement it the best way you can.

Sorry if any of the above doesn't make sense to you.


________ Information from NOD32 ________
This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System for Linux Mail Servers.
  part000.txt - is OK
http://www.eset.com

Re: [Caml-list] build, distribution, data and metadata

[Nicolas Pouillard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1362 bytes --]

Excerpts from Cristian Baboi's message of Thu Jan 31 09:57:27 +0100 2008:
> Hello!
Hello!

> I joined this list in an attempt to learn OCAML.
> I don't yet know the language, the libraries or the building and  
> distribution policies.
> In these two days since I subscribed to the list I've seen a long  
> discussion about the lack of standards.

Last two days were exceptionally very loaded.

> I have a few remarks regarding these matters and I thought to share them:
> 
> - metadata is just data
Yes, but this generally means data about data.

> - the make files are written in a well defined language
Considering GNU make, BSD make, pmake, bmake, omake... I would say no.

> - rumors say ocaml is good at writing translators
That's not rumor, that's the truth :)

[...]

> - I like the freepascal approach http://www.freepascal.org/advantage.var:
> 
> "No Makefiles Unlike most programming languages, Pascal does not need  
> Makefiles. You can save huge amounts of time, the compiler just figures  
> out itself which files need to be recompiled."

That's why ocamlbuild has been created, to make Makefiles useless.

> So, my suggestion is to agree on a *language* in which to express the  
> build/distribution/whatever and then implement it the best way you can.

That's OCaml itself using the ocamlbuild API.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: [Caml-list] build, distribution, data and metadata

[Cristian Baboi]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:28:21 +0200, Nicolas Pouillard  
<nicolas.pouillard@gmail.com> wrote:

> Excerpts from Cristian Baboi's message of Thu Jan 31 09:57:27 +0100 2008:

>> - the make files are written in a well defined language

> Considering GNU make, BSD make, pmake, bmake, omake... I would say no.

Then why I'm not seeing files like these:

- Make.GNUmake
- Make.BSDmake
- Make.pmake
- Make.bmake
- Make.omake

...

like I see filename.pas and filename.c ?


________ Information from NOD32 ________
This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System for Linux Mail Servers.
  part000.txt - is OK
http://www.eset.com

Re: [Caml-list] build, distribution, data and metadata

[Aleksey Nogin]

On 29.01.2008 09:56, Bünzli Daniel wrote:

>>   I know there is Omake,
> 
> Having used ocamlbuild for caml projects, for me it is out of question
> to return to something make-like.

On 31.01.2008 01:28, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:

>> - the make files are written in a well defined language
> Considering GNU make, BSD make, pmake, bmake, omake... I would say no.

IMHO it would be improper to consider OMake as being make-like and group
it together with various make variants. While some very basic elements
of OMake syntax are made to resemble make in order to facilitate
learning OMake for those familiar with make, but in most respects it is
a lot closer to, say, ocamlbuild than to make.

Of course, this is just a biased opinion of an OMake co-author ;-)

Aleksey

Re: [Caml-list] build, distribution, data and metadata

[Nicolas Pouillard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1014 bytes --]

Excerpts from nogin's message of Fri Feb 01 23:56:16 +0100 2008:
> On 29.01.2008 09:56, Bünzli Daniel wrote:
> 
> >>   I know there is Omake,
> > 
> > Having used ocamlbuild for caml projects, for me it is out of question
> > to return to something make-like.
> 
> On 31.01.2008 01:28, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
> 
> >> - the make files are written in a well defined language
> > Considering GNU make, BSD make, pmake, bmake, omake... I would say no.
> 
> IMHO it would be improper to consider OMake as being make-like and group
> it together with various make variants. While some very basic elements
> of OMake syntax are made to resemble make in order to facilitate
> learning OMake for those familiar with make, but in most respects it is
> a lot closer to, say, ocamlbuild than to make.

I  think  you're  right,  I  really  hesitated to put omake in the same group,
because that's really *not* just a make variant.

Of course being ocamlbuild-opinionated didn't helped me :)

-- 
Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]