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] ocaml and large development projects
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-05-18 (18:08)
From: Lex Stein <stein@e...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml and large development projects

You are missing the point. It is not true that building a program requires
full recompilation. The point that Prof. Hickey made was that a program
requires full recompilation if you make a change then build *native* code.
The bytecode compiler (ocamlc) does allow separate compilation. I believe
that nightly builds are done for checking code compilability, ensuring
that interfaces still compile against one another, and for generating an
executable to run correctness regression tests against. I don't believe
nightly builds exist to either generate an executable target for
performance tests or generate binary product code; the reasons one would
use ocamlopt over ocamlc.


On Sun, 18 May 2003, Ed L Cashin wrote:

> John Carr <jfc@MIT.EDU> writes:
> >> Don't people consider separate compilation and the ability to change
> >> implementation without complete project recompiles a fundamental
> >> requirement of non-toy languages?
> >
> > Ten or fifteen years ago (when building a large project took a day of
> > compile time, and building the complete OS took several days) I would
> > have answered "yes".
> >
> > Now it is an important feature but not an essential feature.
> Working with an O.S. kernel or mozilla on a one-year-old PC reminds me
> that it still essential for some projects.
> --
> --Ed L Cashin     PGP public key:
> -------------------
> To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
> Bug reports: FAQ:
> Beginner's list:

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: