RE: [Caml-list] The DLL-hell of O'Caml

["Dave Berry" <Dave@kal.com>]

FWIW, we (KAL) maintain backwards compatibility in a whole host of DLLs
and OCXs on Windows NT, 2000, and XP.  You can drop a version of our
utilities DLL compiled last night into a distribution from two years
ago, and your distribution will carry on working as if nothing had
changed.  So it is possible, even on Microsoft systems, given sufficient
care on the part of the designers.

What would be nice would be a type system that could ensure this for us.
There's some opportunities for academic research here, surely?

-----Original Message-----
From: Xavier Leroy [mailto:xavier.leroy@inria.fr]
Sent: 21 March 2002 18:10
To: Jeff Henrikson
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The DLL-hell of O'Caml

What I think is futile is to expect users to pick independently-
compiled binary distributions of libraries and dynamically-linked
executables
left and right, and expect that the resulting system will work.  Try
to do this with a Linux system and it will break very quickly.

-------------------
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