Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
[Caml-list] Dynamically evaluating OCaml code
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Kenneth Knowles <kknowles@b...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] BSD vs. GPL
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:38:08AM -0700, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> > The primary motivation for much free software *is* FSF-style
> > idealism.
> 
> True.  And I can't stand those people.

Right, but you shouldn't be surprised... in fact you should *expect* them to
license things under GPL and LGPL licenses, since those are the licenses which
defend their principles.  To desire otherwise is to hope to take advantage of
their idealism while violating said principles.  This is my entire point.
 
> Idealists think the programmer is supposed to contribute massive amounts
> of time and money for the betterment of all mankind.

No, idealists think programmers should be paid to write free software (and they
frequently are) 

> Get what ready, OCaml package managers that work on Windows?

Yes.  Exactly.  There is no OCaml package manager on Windows because nobody
wants it enough to support it through time or money (even collectively, as the
commons might).  The economics are plain.  Advanced package management is not
particularly critical, however.  After countless years of windows, 2 years of
Slackware, and about a year of Gentoo, I'd say it only saves maybe an hour or
two per month.  (I'm using Windows and Slackware as examples of systems with no
significant automated package management: autoconf == wizard installer)

> (BSD project BTW. ;-)

I'm actually happy to here of an open source project for the platform.  I'm
fairly happy in my linux/ocaml world without mass adoption, but I think Windows
will suck less as a development and desktop platform as more free software
becomes available.

It would be nice if it shipped with cygwin - it would be even nicer if MS wrote
the compatability layer so it would play real nice.  :-)

> Adding OCaml to Nebula is a modest project.  My pressing need for OCaml
> package management only comes *after* undertaking that project.  And who
> knows, maybe I'll mostly be writing original code than bothering with
> anyone else's crufty code.  I don't know where future game projects will
> lead me.

Looking at the nebula device page, I notice .Net languages are supported, so you
might take a look at Nemerle (recently linked) and F# (Microsoft's experimental
ocaml implementation for .Net).

The INRIA ocaml is much, much nicer than F#, though.

> ... don't be surprised that I don't volunteer to be the first upon
> the sacrificial altar.

Thanks for the laugh :-)

Kenn

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