From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA10142 for caml-redistribution; Mon, 12 May 1997 20:12:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA22783 for ; Mon, 12 May 1997 10:30:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail.rapidsite.net (mail.rapidsite.net [207.158.192.62]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA12075 for ; Mon, 12 May 1997 10:30:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from rivalnet.com by mail.rapidsite.net via SMTP (950413.SGI.8.6.12/951211.SGI) for id EAA28166; Mon, 12 May 1997 04:30:18 -0400 Received: from cc.swm [192.168.0.2] by rivalnet.com [192.168.0.1] with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.1.rB.b1.32-R) for ; Mon, 12 May 97 10:20:39 +0100 Received: by cc.swm with Microsoft Mail id <01BC5EBE.23367560@cc.swm>; Mon, 12 May 1997 10:20:38 +0200 Message-ID: <01BC5EBE.23367560@cc.swm> From: Carsten Clasohm To: "'Lyn A Headley'" , "caml-list@inria.fr" Subject: RE: ocaml needs users: native code for windows? Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 10:20:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MDMail-Server: MDaemon v2.1 rB b1 32-R X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: caml-list@inria.fr Sender: weis > Given those goals, it seems that one step in the right > direction would involve porting ocamlopt to Intel Win32 and binding > the frightful but popular Windows API to it, thus allowing people to > produce Windows binaries without leaving the comforts of ocaml. I use OCaml for a commercial Win32 project and am quite happy with the current integration of C(++) and OCaml. The GUI tasks in the program are carried out by C++ classes, while the 'real' computations are done by OCaml code. IMHO it's best to implement the GUI part with C++ and the Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC). That's because 1. Microsoft VisualC++ offers a useable set of tools for designing the GUI and linking code to it. 2. The Win32 API is encapsulated by an extensive class hierarchy (the MFC) that offers a good representation of the GUI. 3. The GUI code's complexity is relatively low, i.e. I'm comfortable doing it using C++. 4. Interfacing C++ and OCaml is quite easy if one uses C++ classes that encapsulate the OCaml values and functions. > Does anyone else think this is a goal worth pursuing? Porting the MFC might be worth it. But then, it's a lot of work and I don't think it would generate enough benefits. Carsten