From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB15FBC69 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 04:49:25 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aj0KAHoNjUfUnw7Vlmdsb2JhbACCNo1VAQEBAQcEBiIHnDo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,291,1196636400"; d="scan'208";a="6097170" Received: from ptb-relay02.plus.net ([212.159.14.213]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 16 Jan 2008 04:49:25 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by ptb-relay02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1JEzHI-0007id-Ki for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:49:24 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Hash clash in polymorphic variants Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:42:20 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200801150459.03896.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <20080116.122627.-10635426.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <891bd3390801151934s62c5c698vf4a5ac54bfe2fd4d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <891bd3390801151934s62c5c698vf4a5ac54bfe2fd4d@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801160342.20595.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Spam: no; 0.00; hash:01 variants:01 yaron:01 minsky:01 ocaml:01 guis:01 ocaml:01 lablgtk:01 guis:01 lablgtk:01 frog:98 polymorphic:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 back-end:02 On Wednesday 16 January 2008 03:34:54 Yaron Minsky wrote: > We started out doing entirely back-end processes using OCaml, but as time > went on, we started building more and more GUIs. The fact that OCaml has > lablgtk makes it much more useful for us, without a doubt. The main reason > we like to do GUIs in OCaml is that we see a lot of value in sharing type > definitions and code between the GUIs and the back-end services they > connect to. Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to. I think a lot of people want simple GUIs that are perfectly feasible to construct entirely in OCaml and the overhead of splitting a project across languages is much higher. Fortunately, LablGTK makes this feasible in OCaml. There must be some reason why LablGTK is so popular! ;-) -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e