Browse thread
[Caml-list] Alternative proposal: COAN
[
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: | Brian Hurt <brian.hurt@q...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Alternative proposal: COAN |
Thinking about it some more, I think I'm comming down opposed to a CPAN-style library. At my previous job we had a large app written in Perl (~5 man-years of development effort) which was dependent upon several CPAN libraries. Installing this application was *ahem* interesting. Part of the trick was just remembering which libraries were needed. Installing a single CPAN module is easy. Installing 30 (and then backtracking to remember which ones you missed) is a chore. Installing a single monolithic block (or a small number of semilithic blocks) is easier. Versioning was also a problem. Hopefully this was more of a language issue than a module issue, but it's a relevent fear. I remember they were having to downgrade the perls that came with newer redhats because several of the libraries hadn't yet been upgraded to the newer version (or, in one memorable case, had been ugraded so that it worked with version X and version X+2, but not version X+1, which was, natch, the version RH shipped with). A monolithic library, under a more central management, would make conformance easier to enforce. Brian ------------------- 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