Re: [Caml-list] Re: OCaml standard library: past, present, future

[Andrei Formiga <andrei.formiga@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Vincent Hanquez <tab@snarc.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 09:27:12PM +0200, Dawid Toton wrote:
>>
>> >I know there are some projects of building such complete library out
>> >there. I've heard at least of Batteries. I know also some companies
>> >are working on improving OCaml. So when are at least part of these
>> >libraries (the ones that the upstream core team consider high-quality
>> >enough) included into the upstream distribution?
>> So you want some libraries to be put in one tarball together with
>> the compiler?
>> Why don't you like them packaged separately?
>
> I think you're focused on the wrong thing here; the important bit is the standard.
> how they get installed is probably irrevelant, the only thing is that there's
> no such standard package to get ATM. shall i get Core ? batteries ?
> then which other libraries are considered standard ?
>
> The haskell platform is a good example of that. It's not bundled with the
> compiler, yet they managed to setup a standard effort, where you have high
> quality and coherent libraries.
>

The Haskell platform is a good comparison, because it's a community
effort. As far as I recall, INRIA's reasoning about the standard
library is that everything added to it must be maintained by them, and
they're not terribly interested in increasing the burden of OCaml
maintenance, being a research institution and all.

I think OCaml Batteries is the closest project we have in OCaml-land
to the Haskell Platform, and its goals include selecting and including
other libraries beyond what was called Extlib before.

-- 
[]s, Andrei Formiga