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 PAA26602; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 15:20:43 +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 PAA26486 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 15:20:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from darboux.math.univ-montp2.fr (darboux.math.univ-montp2.fr [162.38.126.4]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i89DKgil032588 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 15:20:42 +0200 Received: from [162.38.126.189] (prt-lelievre.math.univ-montp2.fr [162.38.126.189]) by darboux.math.univ-montp2.fr (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id i89EIY218953 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 15:18:34 +0100 (WEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: samuel.lelievre@pop.free.fr Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040909122103.GA27255@bourg.inria.fr> References: <20040909122103.GA27255@bourg.inria.fr> Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 15:20:38 +0200 To: Caml-list From: Samuel Lelievre Subject: Re: [Caml-list] date - waiting for 64-bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 414058AA.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; samuel:01 samuel:01 caml-list:01 basile:01 developped:01 bug-fix:01 slower:01 compiler:01 -bit:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 caml:01 caml:01 int:01 simpler:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Basile Starynkevitch wrote: >I suggest to switch to Ocaml (even on a 32 bits machine) > >% ocaml > Objective Caml version 3.08.0 > ># #load "unix.cma";; ># Unix.time ();; >- : float = 1094732223. ># Unix.gmtime (Unix.time ());; >- : Unix.tm = >{Unix.tm_sec = 16; Unix.tm_min = 17; Unix.tm_hour = 12; Unix.tm_mday = 9; > Unix.tm_mon = 8; Unix.tm_year = 104; Unix.tm_wday = 4; Unix.tm_yday = 252; > Unix.tm_isdst = false} ># > >I am not sure that staying in Caml Light is a sensible thing to do, >especially for code that you are working on. Maybe taking the >necessary time to port your code from Caml-Light (which is not active >anymore) to Ocaml (which is actively developped and has a bigger >community) is really worth the effort. Do you mean that the integers of type int are not mod 2^31 in Ocaml? That's certainly an argument to make me make my mind to switch, which I was postponing forever, having failed to translate my simple programs to Ocaml (I have to confess I did not try hard). I learnt how to use the "num" library in order to deal with larger integers than 2^30, but if Ocaml makes it simpler... I was sticking to the advice on http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/bigpicture.html Should I switch from Caml Light to Objective Caml? Caml Light is still maintained, though no longer actively developed. We make bug-fix releases from time to time and still provide support for it. It provides a more stable programming environment than Objective Caml, which is still evolving, though at a slower pace than immediately after its introduction. If you're perfectly happy with Caml Light, value reliability more than performance, don't need the new module system, don't need the new object stuff, then stay with Caml Light. If you need objects, powerful modules, the native-code compiler, or just like being on the cutting edge, go for Objective Caml. Samuel Lelievre ------------------- 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