English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
Why don't you use batteries?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2009-09-04 (14:05)
From: Richard Jones <rich@a...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why don't you use batteries?
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 07:39:25AM +0100, Gaius Hammond wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2009, at 01:08, Jon Harrop wrote:
> >I would very much like to learn batteries and write OCaml Journal  
> >articles
> >about it. The main reason I have not is not just that it has not  
> >reached 1.0
> >yet but that it is not a mere "apt-get install" away for most users.
> This (for example) is what other language communities count as  
> "batteries included":
> http://www.activestate.com/activepython/

Which brings us back to the argument when Batteries was orginally
proposed: For some reason, some users are unable to use 'apt-get', or
the corresponding clicky interfaces.

For those users, either they need to be taught how to use the clicky
interfaces, or, if they are on certain OSes which lack packaging
systems, one can provide a fat OCaml package with lots of libraries.

However this problem is completely orthogonal to the problem of
providing a core, consistent and standardized library.


Richard Jones
Red Hat