Re: [Caml-list] What does Jane Street use/want for an IDE? What about you?

Re: [Caml-list] What does Jane Street use/want for an IDE? What about you?

[Baudet David]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1434 bytes --]

> I agree.  There are many different use cases, different types of developers
> with different goals and styles.  Putting most of the heavy lifting into
> external tools so that can be integrated into any editor would be a great
> boon across the board.
>
> Actually, how did ocamlwizard go?  I seemed to have missed the OSC results.
> The proposal looked promising..
>


Ocamlwizard is available here from Osp Meeting: http://ocamlwizard.lri.fr/
The OSP result is here : http://ocaml.janestreet.com/?q=node/38

Me and Mohammed were very busy this last month (from the osp meeting), but
Mohamed have updated the website and the Newer will be online in few days, I
think...

Me, I try to finish the "developper documentation" this next week to help
some best implementation of this tools in emacs and other IDE... and to
explain our implementation, I prepare too a short video to show "how
install" and "use" ocamlwizard.

We try to finish some part of ocamlwizard, but we can't promise when... for
this time.

We didn't answer at all question on ocamlwizard, but I have read it (and I
am sure, Mohamed too) and I wil continue every weeks to read caml list...
and I hope this developper documentation answer for me.

...Sorry for my english...


| Ocamlwizard Team
| ------------------
| Baudet David
| M2 Programmation and Developpment, Gamagora
| ------------------
| http://dafide.free.fr/
| (En construction)
| -------------------

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2003 bytes --]

Re: [Caml-list] What does Jane Street use/want for an IDE? What about you?

[Maxence Guesdon]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:53:19 +0200
"Baudet David" <dafide18@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I agree.  There are many different use cases, different types of developers
> > with different goals and styles.  Putting most of the heavy lifting into
> > external tools so that can be integrated into any editor would be a great
> > boon across the board.
> >
> > Actually, how did ocamlwizard go?  I seemed to have missed the OSC results.
> > The proposal looked promising..
> >
> 
> 
> Ocamlwizard is available here from Osp Meeting: http://ocamlwizard.lri.fr/
> The OSP result is here : http://ocaml.janestreet.com/?q=node/38
> 
> Me and Mohammed were very busy this last month (from the osp meeting), but
> Mohamed have updated the website and the Newer will be online in few days, I
> think...
> 
> Me, I try to finish the "developper documentation" this next week to help
> some best implementation of this tools in emacs and other IDE... and to
> explain our implementation, I prepare too a short video to show "how
> install" and "use" ocamlwizard.
> 
> We try to finish some part of ocamlwizard, but we can't promise when... for
> this time.
> 
> We didn't answer at all question on ocamlwizard, but I have read it (and I
> am sure, Mohamed too) and I wil continue every weeks to read caml list...
> and I hope this developper documentation answer for me.

Talking about ocamlwizard, why does it embed a part of ocaml sources
rather than use a configure option to find the compiled sources of ocaml ?
This would allow to compile ocamlwizard with any (compatible) version of
ocaml (even a cvs version). For example, how to use it with ocaml 3.11 beta1
without modifying the copied parts of ocaml present in ocamlwizard ?

That's how topcameleon is compiled, asking the user where the compiled
sources of ocaml are located.

Having the compiled sources of ocaml is not a problem for an ocaml
developer, and the ocamlwizard users are ocaml developers, aren't they ?

For users of pre-compiled packages (debian, etc.), this is not a problem
for the packagers to have ocamlwizard compiled using the sources of ocaml
used for the ocaml package.

Regards,


-- 
Maxence Guesdon                           http://yquem.inria.fr/~guesdon/
Service Expérimentation et Développements https://devel.inria.fr/rocq/
INRIA Paris-Rocquencourt                  http://www.inria.fr/rocquencourt/

Re: What does Jane Street use/want for an IDE? What about you?

[Sylvain Le Gall]

On 24-10-2008, Maxence Guesdon <maxence.guesdon@inria.fr> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:53:19 +0200
> "Baudet David" <dafide18@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We didn't answer at all question on ocamlwizard, but I have read it (and I
>> am sure, Mohamed too) and I wil continue every weeks to read caml list...
>> and I hope this developper documentation answer for me.
>
> That's how topcameleon is compiled, asking the user where the compiled
> sources of ocaml are located.
>
> Having the compiled sources of ocaml is not a problem for an ocaml
> developer, and the ocamlwizard users are ocaml developers, aren't they ?
>
> For users of pre-compiled packages (debian, etc.), this is not a problem
> for the packagers to have ocamlwizard compiled using the sources of ocaml
> used for the ocaml package.
>

I don't agree, people should take care of the license of the file they
use from OCaml source. You cannot link with everything inside the
source, except if you acknowledge in some way the license of this
source. 

A lot of code from the compiler is Q Public license. People should be
aware of this point.

To be short, people using GPL for their code should include the
following term: 

 As a special exception, you have permission to link this program
 with the FOO library and distribute executables, as long as you
 follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the
 software in the executable aside from FOO.

(when using module FOO). 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QPL

However, I agree that embeding source of ocaml inside another project is
the worse thing you can do.

Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall

Re: What does Jane Street use/want for an IDE? What about you?

[Maxence Guesdon]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:45:09 +0000 (GMT)
mohamed iguernelala <mohamed.iguernelala@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> > Talking about ocamlwizard, why does it embed a part of ocaml sources
> > rather than use a configure option to find the compiled sources of ocaml ?
> > This would allow to compile ocamlwizard with any (compatible) version of
> > ocaml (even a cvs version). For example, how to use it with ocaml 3.11 beta1
> > without modifying the copied parts of ocaml present in ocamlwizard ?
> 
> > That's how topcameleon is compiled, asking the user where the compiled
> > sources of ocaml are located.
> 
> > Having the compiled sources of ocaml is not a problem for an ocaml
> > developer, and the ocamlwizard users are ocaml developers, aren't they ?
> 
> > For users of pre-compiled packages (debian, etc.), this is not a problem
> > for the packagers to have ocamlwizard compiled using the sources of ocaml
> > used for the ocaml package.
> 
> > Regards,
>  
> > -- 
> > Maxence Guesdon                           http://yquem.inria.fr/~guesdon/
> > Service Expérimentation et Développements https://devel.inria.fr/rocq/
> > INRIA Paris-Rocquencourt                  http://www.inria.fr/rocquencourt/
> 
> Unfortunately, Its's not possible (for now) to have ocamlwizard compatible with both ocaml-3.10 and ocaml-3.11 for several reasons : 
>  
> Ocamlwizard uses a patched ocaml-3.10 parser to be used on incomplete source files. But I think it is easy to patch an ocaml-3.11 parser to do so.
>  
> During the first month (during June), we used cvs version of ocaml (3.11). We have patched an ocaml-3.11 parser, we parsed the annot file to get expression's type and read cmi files to get more information and to extract proposals ... 
>  
> But, We've released by the beginning of July that types in .annot (3.10.2) are not always qualified enough. And to give the right qualification we have to perfom a scope analysis. We also need to scope analysis for nagivation in soure code and refactoring.
>  
> We know its better to use ocaml compiler as a blackbox to increase portability. and we considered this approach as much as possible, but (unfortunately) important information are missing. Performing our own scope analysis it not realistic. The solution we have choose is to embed and ocaml type checker (3.10) and to patch it to have localizations in cmi files (.cmi + localizations = .owz files). I suppose typecheckers in ocaml-3.10 and in ocaml-3.11 are differents.
>  
> So, we have embed ocaml source files in ocamlwizard (parser + typechecker ) because we have to patch some files to get the information we need. Thus, to be used with ocaml-3.11, one have to patch ocaml-3.11 parser and typechecker.

Thanks for these explanations. I suspected something like that, since I
already encountered some problems with missing location info in the
typedtree.

Do you think about submitting a patch to caml developers in a near future so
that ocamlwizard could find all needed information with any compatible
version of ocaml without any patch ? And then it would be great to be able
to use ocamlwizard features from an ocaml library (this is more convenient
and faster than launch commands and read files).

Regards,

-- 
Maxence Guesdon                           http://yquem.inria.fr/~guesdon/
Service Expérimentation et Développements https://devel.inria.fr/rocq/
INRIA Paris-Rocquencourt                  http://www.inria.fr/rocquencourt/

Re: What does Jane Street use/want for an IDE? What about you?

[mohamed iguernelala]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2645 bytes --]

> Talking about ocamlwizard, why does it embed a part of ocaml sources
> rather than use a configure option to find the compiled sources of ocaml ?
> This would allow to compile ocamlwizard with any (compatible) version of
> ocaml (even a cvs version). For example, how to use it with ocaml 3.11 beta1
> without modifying the copied parts of ocaml present in ocamlwizard ?

> That's how topcameleon is compiled, asking the user where the compiled
> sources of ocaml are located.

> Having the compiled sources of ocaml is not a problem for an ocaml
> developer, and the ocamlwizard users are ocaml developers, aren't they ?

> For users of pre-compiled packages (debian, etc.), this is not a problem
> for the packagers to have ocamlwizard compiled using the sources of ocaml
> used for the ocaml package.

> Regards,
 
> -- 
> Maxence Guesdon                           http://yquem.inria.fr/~guesdon/
> Service Expérimentation et Développements https://devel.inria.fr/rocq/
> INRIA Paris-Rocquencourt                  http://www.inria.fr/rocquencourt/

Unfortunately, Its's not possible (for now) to have ocamlwizard compatible with both ocaml-3.10 and ocaml-3.11 for several reasons : 
 
Ocamlwizard uses a patched ocaml-3.10 parser to be used on incomplete source files. But I think it is easy to patch an ocaml-3.11 parser to do so.
 
During the first month (during June), we used cvs version of ocaml (3.11). We have patched an ocaml-3.11 parser, we parsed the annot file to get expression's type and read cmi files to get more information and to extract proposals ... 
 
But, We've released by the beginning of July that types in .annot (3.10.2) are not always qualified enough. And to give the right qualification we have to perfom a scope analysis. We also need to scope analysis for nagivation in soure code and refactoring.
 
We know its better to use ocaml compiler as a blackbox to increase portability. and we considered this approach as much as possible, but (unfortunately) important information are missing. Performing our own scope analysis it not realistic. The solution we have choose is to embed and ocaml type checker (3.10) and to patch it to have localizations in cmi files (.cmi + localizations = .owz files). I suppose typecheckers in ocaml-3.10 and in ocaml-3.11 are differents.
 
So, we have embed ocaml source files in ocamlwizard (parser + typechecker ) because we have to patch some files to get the information we need. Thus, to be used with ocaml-3.11, one have to patch ocaml-3.11 parser and typechecker.
 
Regards,
 
Mohamed.


      

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3446 bytes --]

What does Jane Street use/want for an IDE? What about you?

[Kuba Ober]

I have questions to the kind folks at Jane Street,
and others who use OCaml for commercial/non-research
development: what do you guys use for your development
environment? What would be the minimal set of functionality
that would make you happy for an IDE? What are killer features
you dream of?

I'm trying to come up with a longer time plan for Camelia --
this so far relegated, to the dismay of my wife and daughter
-- to prolonging my morning showers, so I may as well ask
around. None of those plans/feedback would have immediate
effect, but I wouldn't mind it simmering for a bit.

The reason I got into camelia is not only OCaml, but it
seems like a small and manageable enough IDE to base
other tools that I'm working on for various embedded
architectures. In the long run, for Windows platform
I will statically link it and literally have it be
a single executable, so that it can be trivially
shared, it would also make it easier to consume
by people on locked-down computers where software
installations are disallowed. Of course OCaml is another
deal here, but you have to start with something :)

Cheers, Kuba