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] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2004-03-18 (23:31)
From: Benjamin Geer <ben@s...>
Subject: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library)
John Carr wrote:
> We pay a company
> to provide us with an embedded Linux environment including
> cross-compilation tools.  While in reality ocaml will be
> more reliable than g++ due to the vast difference in
> complexity, that doesn't overcome the fear.

Moreover, because g++ has an open development process, if that company 
fixes a bug in g++, or adds a generally useful feature, you can be 
pretty sure that it will end up in an official release of g++ as long as 
it is well-written and well-tested.  This very fact encourages such 
companies to appear.


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