Browse thread
[Caml-list] Cross-compiling OCaml
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ 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 enjoy. > 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. Then SOLVE IT ALREADY. -- John Goerzen Author, Foundations of Python Network Programming http://www.complete.org/pynet ------------------- 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