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: | -- (:) |
| From: | Jon Harrop <jon@f...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included |
On Tuesday 18 November 2008 09:56:18 David Teller wrote: > Now, we've decided that our current hierarchy is perhaps somewhat clumsy > and that it may benefit from some reworking. Before we proceed, we'd > like some feedback from the community... I only have one major concern: you say "with the large number of modules involved, we would need a hierarchy of modules" but the number of modules involved is tiny (a few dozen in OCaml compared to tens or even hundreds of thousands in any industrial-strength language) because OCaml has very few libraries. Yet your module hierarchies are already enormous and often require a longer sequence of modules to reach simple functionality than is required in a comparatively-huge library like .NET. To me, the most striking example is printf which is just printf in F#, Printf.printf in OCaml and is now Text.Printf.printf in OCaml+Batteries. Surely this is a step in the wrong direction? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e