skaller wrote:
> 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 ). > [re: having to recompile everything]
>
> 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)

Because you are not compiling programs large enough and often enough for
this to become sheer hell?  I've read many a postmortem in GameDeveloper
magazine where excessive compile times are a major drain on
productivity.  Anecdotally, I've met too many happy Python programmers
to poo pooh the evasion of compile time.


Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
                          - anonymous entrepreneur

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.643 / Virus Database: 411 - Release Date: 3/25/2004

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