On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 17:50, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:

> Other way of thinking is : what do we need in order to get binary-only
> distributions ? OCaml have a bytecode interpreter, so why we can't release
> libraries simply as a big CMA ( and some CMI's ). Answer : because the
> bytecode binary format is very strict, and not suited for this kind of usage
> (adding a function in the interface of a sub library needs to recompile all
> top librairies ). 

Who cares? 

I've worked on code where turnaround for compilations were:

1970's -- overnight (Fortran)
1980's -- 2-3 hours (Cobol/Pl1)
1990's -- 20-40 minutes (C/C++)
2000's -- 10-60 seconds (Ocaml)

and that's working on large Mainframe (Cyber 70),
Small mainframe (Facom), Medium Sun box,
and 500MHz Pentium III, respectively.

-- 
John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net
voice: 061-2-9660-0850, 
snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia
Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net



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