From: "David Allsopp" <dra-news@metastack.com>
To: "'Rakotomandimby Mihamina'" <mihamina@gulfsat.mg>,
<caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] probability of some events
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:54:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <002b01ca3122$b7061a40$25124ec0$@metastack.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4AA73950.9000901@gulfsat.mg>
> > Are you aware of such future changes in OCaml, that would lead to
> > incompatibility?
With the usual caveat that past performance is not an indicator of future
wealth...
In the last few years, the only change which caused a bit of an uproar was
camlp4 between 3.09 and 3.10 (which was totally incompatible but had the
same command name). This has all since resolved itself (camlp5 maintained
separately for developers who want the old mechanism and the new camlp4 now
in general use) but I think it's reasonable to say that the response to it
at the time means that it's unlikely that such a breaking change would be
introduced within the 3.x branch of OCaml in the future, but of course I too
don't speak for the guys at Inria. It seemed obvious from the list posts at
the time that 3.10.0 was adopted more slowly than normal minor
version-number releases because of the breaking change in camlp4.
Further history (looking only at Changes in the sources: I started using
OCaml at version 3.06, I think) suggests that breaking changes between major
versions have either been detectable and trivial to fix or aided with
translation tools. For example, stdlib function names had to change between
Caml Special Light 1.15 and Objective Caml 1.00 or new keywords between
OCaml 1.07 and 2.00 and between OCaml 2.04 and 3.00, there appears to have
been much concern for backwards compatibility with tools provided to help
the transition from various different previous versions of the merged
compilers.
As for what gems OCaml 4.x may or may not feature, you'd have to bribe the
priests at Inria for details of their dreams and wishes ;o)
> We intend to begin huge developments in OCaml (Web, GUI, system,...)
> and such changes will make our task a bit more difficult.
Your (valid) worry about future incompatibilities definitely shouldn't put
you off this! It's also painless to run multiple versions of OCaml
side-by-side (at least if building from sources).
HTH,
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-09 7:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-09 5:12 Rakotomandimby Mihamina
2009-09-09 7:18 ` [Caml-list] " Christophe TROESTLER
2009-09-09 7:54 ` David Allsopp [this message]
2009-09-09 10:18 ` Jon Harrop
2009-09-09 8:04 ` Sylvain Le Gall
2009-09-09 8:10 ` [Caml-list] " Rakotomandimby Mihamina
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='002b01ca3122$b7061a40$25124ec0$@metastack.com' \
--to=dra-news@metastack.com \
--cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
--cc=mihamina@gulfsat.mg \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox