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 RAA11999; Mon, 19 May 2003 17:23:04 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA11564 for ; Mon, 19 May 2003 17:23:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from epexch01.qlogic.org ([63.170.40.3]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h4JFN1T08822 for ; Mon, 19 May 2003 17:23:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from epmailtmp.qlogic.org ([10.20.33.254]) by epexch01.qlogic.org with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 19 May 2003 10:21:18 -0500 Received: from [10.20.33.146] ([10.20.33.146]) by epmailtmp.qlogic.org with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Mon, 19 May 2003 10:21:18 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 10:36:05 -0500 (CDT) From: Brian Hurt X-X-Sender: Reply-To: Brian Hurt To: Chris Hecker cc: David Brown , "'caml-list@inria.fr'" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml and large development projects In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030517225010.04b748a0@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 May 2003 15:21:18.0482 (UTC) FILETIME=[4BB7B720:01C31E1A] X-Spam: no; 0.00; qlogic:01 caml-list:01 hecker:01 rave:99 checksum:01 recompiles:01 chris:01 ocaml:01 caml:01 recompile:01 checking:01 compile:02 module:03 wrote:03 behavior:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sat, 17 May 2003, Chris Hecker wrote: > Any production C++ > programmer evaluating caml as a possible alternative for large scale > software would simply laugh and write off the language as an option for > this behavior alone, in my opinion. Except C++ has *exactly* the same problem. Change a private member of a base class, and watch *everything* recompile. I've seen this more often then I want to remember. This is, of course, assuming you don't have an "everything.h" include file, which is quite common if you precompile headers. At which point, change anything in a header and watch everything recompile. And the Java programmers? The build tool they all (at least all the ones I know about) rave about is Ant, which doesn't even support partial recompilation unless you jump through serious hoops. "It's almost as fast just to recompile the module" they say, "as it is just to check if it's changed." Of course, checking time stamps on files is way too obvious- instead they MD5 checksum the file. And Java doesn't even try to optimize the code on compile. So they may be right, for their language. > Don't people consider separate compilation and the ability to change > implementation without complete project recompiles a fundamental > requirement of non-toy languages? Maybe. C++ and Java are toy languages, then. 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