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

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@bpr.best.vwh.net>]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> > Someone suggested the need of "closed source" as an argument
> > for binary distribution. I can make an argument that relies
> > on less.  Assume ala mathematical induction OCaml
> > proliferates.  Foobar Corp does their bookkeeping in ocaml
> > and has 2 million lines and needs to make a bugfix to their
> > SQL wrapper way down at the bottom of the heap.  Do you tell
> > them they must wait a couple of days do get their system
> > back up?
>
> This is a strawman argument in many respects:

In fact, lot's of commercial entities do provide upgrades in one swell
foop, rather than providing lots of little patches. I wasn't sure about
the history, but I asked the guy who supports all of our CAD software this
morning and he wrote

    EDA companies used to provide software patches
    which were a few files.  These days, most of
    them provide monolithic releases which are
    generally self-sufficient, and incorporate multiple
    bug fixes, in order to minimize the number of
    custom versions they have to support.

I actually expected the use of shared libraries to be increasing over
time. Oh well, that just shows you how closely expectations and reality
conform.

Anyways, this isn't an issue that's ever bothered any of the OCaml fans
where I work. Jeff, if you want to cause trouble, suggest that optimized
code and bytecode should work together seamlessly in all combinations.
That's very desirable, very hard to do, and there are no theory problems
there, just lots of grunge work :-).

-- Brian
-------------------
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