Browse thread
Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included
[
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: | 2008-11-19 (17:37) |
From: | Richard Jones <rich@a...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included |
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 02:38:05PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:32:31PM +0000, Richard Jones wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:15:39PM +0100, David Teller wrote: > > > Do you see any better way of managing the complexity of all this? > > > > I'm still not getting where the benefit of having this hierarchy is, > > except that it adds a Java-like complexity and will create > > hard-to-manage churn if a module ever moves. > > Regarding the advantages see my previous post, where I put some > motivations. Regarding the difficulties of moving modules around, how > harder is than moving a module around when you have no hierarchy? Well I guess what I _meant_ to say was that if your modules aren't in a hierarchy to start with, then you won't be tempted to move them around the hierarchy :-) Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat