Browse thread
[Caml-list] troubleshooting problem related to garbage collection
[
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: | Alain Frisch <frisch@c...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] The DLL-hell of O'Caml |
On Sat, 2 Mar 2002, Mattias Waldau wrote: > The above history is the reason I started using the CDK, > in many cases using libraries that depend on other > libraries is almost impossible without the CDK. Too much > time is spent on downloading and compiling. A related issue is independance w.r.t OCaml version; if you want to try a new OCaml release or CVS version, it is necessary to rebuild all the libraries. For instance, I now have three OCaml versions installed (3.04, 3.04+7 and 3.04+6 polymorphic methods), and it is a pain to maintain three library trees. Similarly, when you upgrade a library, you also have to rebuild all the libraries that depend on it. Some kind of automatization in the process would be great. > I know 3 solutions to the problem: > 1. CDK > 2. Gerd invented findlib to solve the above problem. > 3. Adding good packages to the standard distribution, > so that mostly packages doesn't depend on other > packages, but on packages in the standard > distribution. (But very few if any new packages > are added to the distribution.) The monolithic and centralized approach of CDK does not seem to scale well. Findlib does a good job. It would be great to have such a tool (findlib or a clone, but why not findlib ?) in the standard distribution... > We need a solution. Maybe a CPAN-like solution? Indeed, the new packaging facility in OCaml (-pack option, which glues together a set of modules and allows decent namespace management) opens the door to this kind of project. > In the Ocaml-CPAN it could either be source code, or > compile binaries (I can live without native code, at > least when experimenting with other peoples libraries.) An intermediate solution would be to distribute so-called "lambda-code", that is the internal representation used in OCaml compilers just before code production. The advantage is that it is common to bytecode and native back-end, and it should be possible to design an upward-compatible (w.r.t OCaml version) concrete representation of this code. -- Alain ------------------- 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