Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] More OCaml+windowing system questions
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2002-01-15 (10:24)
From: Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@i...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] More OCaml+windowing system questions
> Question #2: How portable *is* OCaml?  I see that binaries
> are available for Linux, MS Windows, and Macintosh.  Has
> there been success in porting OCaml to other platforms?  If
> not the native-code compiler, at least the byte-code compiler
> and interpreter?

The byte-code system works on essentially every Unix variant out there,
and the native-code compiler is supported for a dozen processor / Unix
variant combinations.  For a detailed list, see

So, OCaml is supported under Unix (including but not limited to
Linux), Windows, MacOS, and BeOS to some extent.  Other operating
systems (VMS, IBM's mainframe OSes, etc) haven't been tried, but they
are getting extinct :-)

> Question #3: As mentioned previously, I will support running
> byte-code applications that use the windowing system.  I
> would like to be able to load each in its own process space,
> so that the OS scheduler can handle scheduling.
> Is there a "good" (efficient, elegant, etc.) portable way to
> handle communication between the windowing system process and
> the application process(es)?

There's a built-in marshaler that lets you exchange complex data
structures over pipes or sockets.  There is no standard remote
function call infrastructure yet, but it's not hard to build one on
top of the marshaler; see for instance what the Unison team did.

- Xavier Leroy
Bug reports:  FAQ:
To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: