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] Cross-compiling OCaml
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@c...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Cross-compiling OCaml
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 04:05 am, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> > What for ? It is boring, the tools are subadequat, and any
> > try to compile a
> > nice ocaml/lablgtk app for windows too resulted in no more
> > than a major time lose.
> I already explained why I'm stuck with Windows.
> But to offer a different philosophical take: Linux is boring too.
> *Programming* is boring.  I only care about the artistic results, the
> games I could make via programming.  I'm interested in tools that

Ahh, that is not why I am here.

I am here because programming is fun and exciting.  I am here because I 
like to try new or different things.  I like to open my mind to ideas I 
haven't heard before, to concepts that are new to me.  OCaml has more 
of that than any other language I've learned in a long time, even 
though I do have experience with functional, imperative, and OO 
languages.  I am still trying to consider all the possibilities that 
camlp4 opens up, and that's just one aspect of it.  The native code 
compilation means that, with a shell on an ARM machine, I can compile 
OCaml code to run on my Zaurus without the need for a large runtime 
environment.  The bytecode compilation means that I can take this stuff 
I compiled on Linux and run it on AIX.

> make it all less painful.  Emphasis on *less* painful.  There's still
> plenty of pain to be had from OCaml, same as any current programming
> language. Nobody has written the UberLanguage yet.  I'm not even sure

Yes, there is pain everywhere.  I've never been one to shy away from the 
"all foo sucks, but foo x sucks less" [1].

But if you hate programming, then stop doing it.  Find something you 

> the paradigm of 'written computer language' is what we need.  I think
> we need voice driven programming and a biological model of software
> grafting.  In other words, computers need to work like we do.

I'd much rather use a keyboard to tell the computer what to do than have 
to listen to the conversations of everyone else with their computers.

Besides, written communication has been around for a very long time, 
too.  It predates the invention of the digital computer by, oh, several 
millennia.  I think it's quite false to complain that using written 
communication is somehow forcing humans to work like computers.

> So, to me that's a problem to be solved.


John Goerzen
Author, Foundations of Python Network Programming

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