Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks

["Arthur Chan" <baguasquirrel@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1267 bytes --]

> I can't comment about the original lack of parallelism issue, but the
> platform-bashing comment is just gibberish to me. I'm all for cool,
> inspiring
> platforms, and I use OS X and Linux exclusively at home/school, but
> Windows
> has made some headway in recent years and for me XP is quite reasonable as
> long as you don't deal with driver writing. The latter is still better
> than
> in WIN95 DDK days, but the toolset (apart from the F#-based tools) is
> obscenely out-of-date, just as it was in 1995. Then there are some
> regressed
> pieces of Linux which are quite a reality check given the whole "we
> support
> old hardware" propaganda (steer clear of SCSI tape drives), so for me
> personally I have equally many bash-Windows arguments as I have bash-Linux
> ones.
>
> Cheers, Kuba
>

Lets not start a platform war on this thread.  I have *plenty* of gripes
with Linux as well.  I was merely digressing, and was sniping at the high
cost of platform specific development.  If you want to discuss Windows
programming gripes, Joel Spolsky's forum has plenty, even with regard to the
idea that things have been better lately.  ocaml+qt does not count.  If
you're using ocaml+qt, then you've basically sidestepped the issues with
writing code for Windows.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1559 bytes --]