From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id DAA14413; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 03:05:30 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 DAA14887 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 03:05:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.181]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3F16Rjq013842 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 03:06:28 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp116-94.lns1.syd2.internode.on.net [150.101.116.94]) by smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i3F15CZq062026; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:35:13 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: GODI vs. Ocamake From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Kenneth Knowles Cc: skaller , Nicolas Cannasse , "Brandon J. Van Every" , caml-list In-Reply-To: <20040414164957.GA24089@tallman.kefka.frap.net> References: <005e01c421f5$2dd45210$ef01a8c0@warp> <1081943666.20677.685.camel@pelican> <20040414164957.GA24089@tallman.kefka.frap.net> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1081991111.20677.877.camel@pelican> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 15 Apr 2004 11:05:12 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocamake:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 knowles:99 ocamake:01 interscript:01 camlp:01 swig:01 wrappers:01 language':01 python:01 autoconf:01 9660:01 glebe:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 360 On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 02:49, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > Just so I don't leave anyone out, I'd say both ocamake and OCamlMakefile handle > (1) and (3) all at once. Yeah? How would they handle Interscript sources? What about Camlp4? My system also contains *Felix* programs, since it happens to be a compiler. How do these make systems handle that? What about my use of SWIG to generate wrappers? That's another 'programming language' which needs to know about what libraries are installed on your target system. By far the best way to handle this complexity is with a SINGLE general purpose language. I chose Python because it runs on more platforms than make, autoconf, or just about any other weird tool. [C itself would have been more universal .. but a too hard to write] -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners