From: Ian T Zimmerman <itz@rahul.net>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: ocaml: demand-driven compilation?
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 08:36:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <199709161536.IAA10793@kronstadt.rahul.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6086.199709131752@venus> (message from William Chesters on Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:52:43 +0100)
In message <6086.199709131752@venus> (message from William Chesters on Sat,
13 Sep 1997 18:52:43 +0100),
you <williamc@dai.ed.ac.uk> write:
> Are there plans to extend the separate compilation system of ocaml
> to take over some of the functions of make, as the Java compiler
> does? The Java compiler not only checks sources against the
> precompiled signatures of the modules it refers to, as
> ocamlc/ocamlopt do; it also checks the existence and modtime of the
> bytecode file against the source and (re)compiles if necessary.
> With a little hack to get any necessary standard libraries included
> in the link command automagically, we wouldn't need makefiles at
> all. For me it would even be nice to able to specify the C files
> implementing the external functions needed by each source _in the
> source itself_.
IMO things like this don't belong to the language or compiler. It is
a _disadvantage_ of Java that it tries to be a `complete environment',
and I bet the reasons why it is packaged that way has a lot to do with
marketing b*s*t. Apart from the general reasons of going against the
toolkit philosophy (if you try to have a program do too much, it stops
cooperating nicely with the rest of the system), in a compiler there's
another reason: depending on the file system in nontrivial ways would
make it harder or impossible to verify that the language has a sound
semantics and that the compiler implements the semantics correctly.
> It would also be possible to do it (approximately) without touching
> the compiler, say using ocamldep, but it would get messy.
Yes, it would definitely be possible to beef up ocamldep. The result
would be a reimplementation of make in ocaml. Why reinvent the wheel?
And why do you dislike makefiles anyways? They are the right tool for
the job.
Just my penny worth.
--
Ian T Zimmerman <itz@rahul.net>
The dilemma is that when you model something
completely on efficiency, a lot of people get hurt.
Dr. Leonard Duhl of UC Berkeley, discussing `managed medical care'.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1997-09-17 8:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1997-09-13 17:52 William Chesters
1997-09-16 15:36 ` Ian T Zimmerman [this message]
1997-09-17 16:52 ` William Chesters
1997-09-22 14:38 ` Ian T Zimmerman
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=199709161536.IAA10793@kronstadt.rahul.net \
--to=itz@rahul.net \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
/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