Re: [Caml-list] Re: Cherry-picking modules (was Re: [ANN] OCaml Reins 0.1 - Persistent Data Structure Library)

[Vincent Aravantinos <vincent.aravantinos@yahoo.fr>]

(Sorry my remark was a bit off-topic)

Le 26 sept. 07 à 18:42, Sylvain Le Gall a écrit :

> On 26-09-2007, Vincent Aravantinos <vincent.aravantinos@yahoo.fr>  
> wrote:
>> Ok, there is camlget, ok there is ocamlfind, ok there is godi.
>>
>> Maybe if there were some 'Inria'-made tool (seems camlget is starting
>> point for that ?) that be settled in the standard ocaml distribution
>> would help to make everyone agreed, don't you think ? This does not
>> solve intrinsic problems such as "I prefer dynamically linked" vs "I
>> prefer statically linked" but at least that would be a tool everyone
>> could rely on. Then everyone is free to use it or not. It would even
>> simplify the task for library-writers.
>>
>
> ocamlfind and godi are very good tool on their own. Why do they  
> need to
> be INRIA-made tool ?

To make it easier, that's all some people are reluctant to use non
supported tools (this joins a recent discussion about extending
standard library or keeping other libraries aside). And you can't blame
them for that.

> INRIA made very good compiler. Great! But let other people use this
> language to build other tools -- with different idea than INRIA.
>
>> BTW isn't it the same with ocamlbuild ? Before there were Omake and
>> others. Now it seems to settle some kind of standard.
>>
>
> FYI, i really think having ocamlbuild in ocaml is not a good solution
> (as bad as having LablTk). For ages, there was ocamlmakefile -- coming
> from INRIA. This was widely used but doesn't become a standard --  
> there
> is no need for it. Anyone, can choose to use his/her/anyone own build
> system.

Ocamlbuild is here and you're still free to choose...
However it's good to have a default when you are a beginner or don't  
want
to mind yourself with "which one should I choose ?".
Those kinds of question are undesirable side-effects that you don't care
when you want to concentrate on thinking the architecture of your code.

> It is really strange, everyone seems to look at OCaml as "languages  
> for
> kid" with everything bundle into some kind of nice package...

facilities <> for kids

> Please be
> more realistic, OCaml is a complicated language

No. Saying this is an excuse for people who don't manage to make it
accessible. Ask yourself why ocaml is not as popular as so many other
languages. It is not far most complicated that many other ones. Why
do you think F# is gaining in interest for many people ? It is not
(only) the language...

V.