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 IAA30730; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 08:42:01 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id IAA29919 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 08:42:01 +0100 (MET) 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 DAA27174 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 03:02:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from sj1-3-4-9.securesites.net (sj1-3-4-9.securesites.net [192.220.127.202]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id g2M22eT07118 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 03:02:40 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 74967 invoked by uid 16863); 22 Mar 2002 02:02:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) ([192.220.65.223]) (envelope-sender ) by 192.220.65.223 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 22 Mar 2002 02:02:38 -0000 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 02:02:38 +0000 (GMT) From: Brian Rogoff To: Xavier Leroy cc: Jeff Henrikson , Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The DLL-hell of O'Caml In-Reply-To: <20020321191028.A18937@pauillac.inria.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Xavier Leroy wrote: > > Someone suggested the need of "closed source" as an argument > > for binary distribution. I can make an argument that relies > > on less. Assume ala mathematical induction OCaml > > proliferates. Foobar Corp does their bookkeeping in ocaml > > and has 2 million lines and needs to make a bugfix to their > > SQL wrapper way down at the bottom of the heap. Do you tell > > them they must wait a couple of days do get their system > > back up? > > This is a strawman argument in many respects: In fact, lot's of commercial entities do provide upgrades in one swell foop, rather than providing lots of little patches. I wasn't sure about the history, but I asked the guy who supports all of our CAD software this morning and he wrote EDA companies used to provide software patches which were a few files. These days, most of them provide monolithic releases which are generally self-sufficient, and incorporate multiple bug fixes, in order to minimize the number of custom versions they have to support. I actually expected the use of shared libraries to be increasing over time. Oh well, that just shows you how closely expectations and reality conform. Anyways, this isn't an issue that's ever bothered any of the OCaml fans where I work. Jeff, if you want to cause trouble, suggest that optimized code and bytecode should work together seamlessly in all combinations. That's very desirable, very hard to do, and there are no theory problems there, just lots of grunge work :-). -- Brian ------------------- 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