Xavier Leroy wrote:
> (As far as "hassling" goes, this will only reinforce my conviction
> that shared libraries are useless.  So, don't do that.)

I don't mean to hassle you, but could you explain this conviction a bit? 
  If shared libraries are useless, why do all Unix and Linux programs 
use libc as a shared library?  Why don't they statically link to it? 
I've always assumed that this is because nobody wants 'ls' and 'cp' to 
be over a megabyte in size.

The lead developer of GNOME and Evolution (which are written in C) 
started the Mono project (a free implementation of .NET) because, as he 
put it:

   There is a point in your life when you realize that
   you have written enough destructors, and have spent
   enough time tracking down a memory leak, and you have
   spend enough time tracking down memory corruption, and
   you have spent enough time using low-level insecure
   functions, and you have implemented way too many linked
   lists.[1]

Now there is debate about whether to write the next version of GNOME in 
C#.  If Caml could make shared libraries, perhaps those sorts of 
libraries (very large libraries, meant to be used by many small 
programs) would have a better chance of being written in Caml.

Ben

[1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers/2002-February/msg00031.html

-------------------
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