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 UAA25086; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:12:42 +0200 (MET DST) 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 UAA24864 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:12:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from outbound28-2.lax.untd.com (vlan1-1.bigip2.lax.untd.com [64.136.28.160]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i3EICaYM006032 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:12:37 +0200 Received: from outbound28-2.lax.untd.com (smtp04.lax.untd.com [10.130.24.124]) by smtpout05.lax.untd.com with SMTP id AABAH492PAG35U4J for (sender ); Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:12:29 -0700 (PST) Received: (qmail 24542 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2004 18:12:07 -0000 Received: from dsc04-sei-wa-205-187-140-253.rasserver.net (HELO vangogh) (205.187.140.253) by smtp04.lax.untd.com with SMTP; 14 Apr 2004 18:12:07 -0000 From: "Brandon J. Van Every" To: "caml-list" Subject: [Caml-list] recompiling bytecode Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:21:01 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <1081945187.20677.710.camel@pelican> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal X-ContentStamp: 14:7:1111245559 X-MAIL-INFO: 3af994a54494a5b9e5a584c4c051f4fd8485fd84102d8419e461b1 X-Miltered: at concorde by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; brandon:99 2004:99 cannasse:01 binary-only:01 cmi's:01 librairies:01 compilations:01 cobol:01 python:01 brandon:99 seattle:99 2004:99 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 recompile:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 343 skaller wrote: > On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 17:50, Nicolas Cannasse wrote: > > > Other way of thinking is : what do we need in order to get > > binary-only > > distributions ? OCaml have a bytecode interpreter, so why > > we can't release > > libraries simply as a big CMA ( and some CMI's ). Answer : > > because the > > bytecode binary format is very strict, and not suited for > > this kind of usage > > (adding a function in the interface of a sub library needs > > to recompile all > > top librairies ). > [re: having to recompile everything] > > Who cares? > > I've worked on code where turnaround for compilations were: > > 1970's -- overnight (Fortran) > 1980's -- 2-3 hours (Cobol/Pl1) > 1990's -- 20-40 minutes (C/C++) > 2000's -- 10-60 seconds (Ocaml) Because you are not compiling programs large enough and often enough for this to become sheer hell? I've read many a postmortem in GameDeveloper magazine where excessive compile times are a major drain on productivity. Anecdotally, I've met too many happy Python programmers to poo pooh the evasion of compile time. Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA "The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back." - anonymous entrepreneur --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.643 / Virus Database: 411 - Release Date: 3/25/2004 ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners