Re: [Caml-list] Some comments on recent discussions

[Adrien <camaradetux@gmail.com>]

On 14/12/2011, Alain Frisch <alain@frisch.fr> wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 02:37 PM, Adrien wrote:
>> I don't think it would be possible to live without a C toolchain simply
>> because we use C libraries all the time.
>
> It depends on who is "we". I can imagine that library developers still
> need a C toolchain but release binary packages that don't.

True. I tend to see the whole toolchain as a single element that you don't
split but it should be possible to only provide binutils.

>> I'm quite interested in the ability to create .cmxs files without a C
>> compiler and can already picture me using it. I've also noticed Benedikt's
>> ocamlnat work. Would it be usable to script native-code applications?
>> Maybe with less requirements?
>
> FWIW, LexiFi's application is distributed together with flexlink.exe and
> ocamlopt.exe, and it can recompile and dynamically load user-defined
> plugins without any other external tool.  (Our clients don't need to
> install anything else to write, compile and run native OCaml code.)
>
> Benedikt's work on ocamlnat also includes a similar direct code
> generator as ours(to avoid the external assembler); I don't think it
> comes with a COFF file emitter, though.  But yes, ocamlnat can be used
> to script native-code applications.

OK, thanks. As I've stated, I'm really interested in this ability. I see
them as complementary with ocamlnat making it possible to quickly do
one-time scripts and experimentations while .cmxs files would be used for
persistant plugins. I can't start using them right now but I think that I'll
try them in a few months.

Regards,
Adrien Nader