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
build, distribution, data and metadata
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2008-01-31 (08:57)
From: Cristian Baboi <cristi@o...>
Subject: build, distribution, data and metadata

I joined this list in an attempt to learn OCAML.
I don't yet know the language, the libraries or the building and  
distribution policies.
In these two days since I subscribed to the list I've seen a long  
discussion about the lack of standards.

I have a few remarks regarding these matters and I thought to share them:

- metadata is just data
- the make files are written in a well defined language
- rumors say ocaml is good at writing translators
- make files are not enough
- make files might not be portable
- installing is just a form of copying software from one environment to  
- I don't like the mess created by the MS Windows Registry and the plague  
of linux configuration files
- I like the freepascal approach

"No Makefiles Unlike most programming languages, Pascal does not need  
Makefiles. You can save huge amounts of time, the compiler just figures  
out itself which files need to be recompiled."

"Distribution independence (Linux) As a result of this, software compiled  
by the Linux version of Free Pascal runs on any Linux distribution, making  
it much, much, easier to make your software support multiple Linux  

So, my suggestion is to agree on a *language* in which to express the  
build/distribution/whatever and then implement it the best way you can.

Sorry if any of the above doesn't make sense to you.

________ Information from NOD32 ________
This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System for Linux Mail Servers.
  part000.txt - is OK