Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] The DLL-hell of O'Caml
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Warp <warplayer@f...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] The DLL-hell of O'Caml |
> Conclusion for OCaml? Forget about binary compatibility, binary-only > distributions, versioning, and all that. All we need for OCaml > libraries is source distribution, a standardized re-building procedure, > and a place to record cross-library dependencies, so that everything > that needs to be recompiled when something changes can be recompiled > automatically. Something like a source RPM or Debian package, or a > BSD port. So, do we need to forget about any commercial usage of OCaml ? In fact, commercial usage needs real "closed-source" libraries where only bytecode files are distributed. Such libraries should be able to evolve , by adding new functions into the interface, and to be loaded with signature checking at run-time. Does the OCaml team don't plan at all to add such feature ? Nicolas Cannasse ------------------- 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