Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: "ocaml_beginners"::[] High-accuracy counter

Expand Messages
  • Robert Roessler
    ... I just did a quick look at the package s documentation and responded to the stated findlib requirement... that said, small to moderately sized projects
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Christophe TROESTLER wrote:
      > On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Robert Roessler <robertr@...> wrote:
      >> Christophe TROESTLER wrote:
      >>
      >>> ...
      >>> You may be interested in the Benchmark module:
      >>> http://ocaml-benchmark.sourceforge.net/
      >> Hmmm... the OP specified Windows XP, but this is one of the
      >> unfortunately large set of possibly very useful packages that can not
      >> be built on Windows systems (natively, anyway) because of a dependency
      >> on a build tool not available on Windows. :(
      >
      > Not sure I understand you here. The distribution contains a file
      > "Make.bat" that allows compiling without problem on Win32. Granted,
      > it was not mentioned in the INSTALL file; it is now. Of course
      > installation must be done by hand.

      I just did a quick look at the package's documentation and responded
      to the stated "findlib" requirement... that said, small to moderately
      sized projects *could* always be released with "normal" ("make" and
      other widely available tools) dev environment dependencies. :)

      Extremely fast "service", BTW - I certainly was not aware of your
      close relationship to the project... I would have offered more
      specifically focused commentary. ;)

      For other Windows users: the Benchmark package builds trivially and
      quickly when using the supplied Make.bat file, which as Chris says,
      was there all the while.

      > That said, patches are always welcomed. This is more constructive
      > route to take I think. Several times windows users have complained on
      > this list. But when asked to contribute some code or patches for the
      > platform they use, what do they do? NOTHING. Nothing has changed for
      > win$ users since I am on this list for the simple reason nobody has
      > done anything. You do not expect people who do not use your platform
      > to (be able to) improve the support for it, do you?

      And while you are obviously correct that patches could be submitted to
      every software project out there that has "overlooked" the vast
      majority of the world's programmers and users, the need for that is
      sometimes artificially created to begin with... why, if one has a
      choice, contribute to the Balkanization of the software development
      and use communities? Given the number of languages and environments
      in existence, the potential for this is already quite large enough...

      And no, I do not expect people who do not use "my" platform "to (be
      able to) improve the support for it"... but I would really rather that
      they didn't block/remove support for it either.

      As a case in point, this Benchmark project does not need findlib for
      just building the package ("make" or "make all")... and if I had
      studied the makefile in enough detail initially to notice that, I
      would not have jumped into this to begin with. ;)

      And so, Chris, here is a suggested patch to your file "Makefile":

      Replace the line

      include Makefile.conf

      with

      -include Makefile.conf
      OCAMLC?=ocamlc.opt
      OCAMLOPT?=ocamlopt.opt

      This way, if a simple make [all] is attempted in an environment that
      does have a Makefile.conf, it can in fact still succeed (if you feel
      that ocamlc/ocamlopt are more likely to be universally available than
      ocamlc.opt/ocamlopt.opt, then by all means use those)! :)

      Finally, I might also suggest that the file "Make.bat" be renamed to
      something like "MakeWin.bat" (or some such), since the "Make.bat" will
      be taken in preference to looking on the path for ANY "make.exe" when
      the *Windows* shell is presented with a command line whose verb is
      "make". This is not an issue if using Cygwin as a "build shell" - but
      it IS problematic with the built-in Windows shell(s).

      Robert Roessler
      robertr@...
      http://www.rftp.com
    • Christophe TROESTLER
      ... Patches are not the only thing windows developpers could provide. It was asked several times in the past on this list or the senior one that some rules
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 8, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sat, 08 Jul 2006, Robert Roessler <robertr@...> wrote:
        >
        > And while you are obviously correct that patches could be submitted
        > to every software project out there that has "overlooked" the vast
        > majority of the world's programmers and users,

        Patches are not the only thing windows developpers could provide. It
        was asked several times in the past on this list or the senior one
        that some "rules" to help to port ocaml projects on win32 be given,
        for example on a page at
        http://wiki.cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml

        Also what are the tools considered standard enough to be used in a
        Makefile on win32? Is all of GNUmake supported or are there some
        quirks? Is it possible to port/adapt OCamlMakefile to win32? ...

        > the need for that is sometimes artificially created to begin
        > with... why, if one has a choice, contribute to the Balkanization of
        > the software development and use communities?

        Well it would be nice that ocamlfind be ported to win32. A GODI port
        would be a huge help for windows users too. There are some
        difficulties but I bet Gerd Stolpmann could help a person (or group of
        people) willing to make the effort.

        > And no, I do not expect people who do not use "my" platform "to (be
        > able to) improve the support for it"... but I would really rather that
        > they didn't block/remove support for it either.

        You see there are a few things windows users can do to receive better
        service. It's time consuming for people to find the answers when they
        do not use this platform ;) I got a bit pissed off because, despite
        several attemps to ask more information or collaboration, the same
        complain recur but no work has been done...

        Cheers,
        ChriS
      • Richard Jones
        ... Perhaps the majority of drone Java/VB programmers. But anecdotal evidence indicates that the majority of OCaml programmers use some sort of Un*x.
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 9, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 03:30:00PM -0700, Robert Roessler wrote:
          > And while you are obviously correct that patches could be submitted to
          > every software project out there that has "overlooked" the vast
          > majority of the world's programmers and users, the need for that is
          > sometimes artificially created to begin with... why, if one has a
          > choice, contribute to the Balkanization of the software development
          > and use communities? Given the number of languages and environments
          > in existence, the potential for this is already quite large enough...

          <rant>

          Perhaps the majority of drone Java/VB programmers. But anecdotal
          evidence indicates that the majority of OCaml programmers use some
          sort of Un*x. What you need to remember is that Windows lacks so much
          out of the box that it's seriously *hard* to support. For example: no
          packaging system, no source, no compiler, no documentation tools, no
          programmers editor, no build chain, ...

          When I slip in a free Ubuntu CD, I get *all* of that, or it is at most
          one apt-get command away.

          I can't give a Windows user a tarball and tell them to apt-get these
          dependencies and hit 'make'. They can't even unzip the tarball
          because Windows doesn't have gzip!

          So now I need to tell them to install a mountain of software to make
          their system minimally usable. But wait! Did they pay extra for MSVC
          with its totally non-standard 'nmake' bastardisation of make or its
          proprietary GUI, or are they using one of the two different versions
          of the GNU tools, or Eclipse? That's 5 different build chains to
          support already, along with a huge list of instructions, and we
          haven't even started on installing OCaml itself, or any OCaml/C
          libraries that I might be using.

          I once taught a classroom of Windows programmers how to install all of
          the software required to compile an OCaml + lablgtk application that
          we wrote for the UK govt. It took *half a day* to go through it all,
          and I can tell you both I and the students were pretty fed up with the
          process.

          On Debian, that's 'sudo apt-get install ocaml lablgtk2-dev'. One
          command which takes probably 5 minutes to run.

          And Windows somehow still manages to be more expensive than all the
          other operating systems out there ...

          </rant>

          Rich.

          --
          Richard Jones, CTO Merjis Ltd.
          Merjis - web marketing and technology - http://merjis.com
          Team Notepad - intranets and extranets for business - http://team-notepad.com
        • Robert Roessler
          ... I personally use Cygwin JUST as a build shell - only having it install the build infrastructure , but using the Microsoft tools (compiler, linker, and
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 11, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Christophe TROESTLER wrote:
            > ...
            > Also what are the tools considered standard enough to be used in a
            > Makefile on win32? Is all of GNUmake supported or are there some
            > quirks? Is it possible to port/adapt OCamlMakefile to win32? ...

            I personally use Cygwin JUST as a "build shell" - only having it
            install the "build infrastructure", but using the Microsoft tools
            (compiler, linker, and librarian). This way, I get the full
            flexibility of "real" make (GNU 3.80) and the usual command-line stuff
            like cp, mv, rm, etc., but still build Windows "native" apps/libs.

            The only "funny thing" I need to do is to rename the Cygwin executable
            "link.exe" to something else - it is *not* compatible with the
            Microsoft tool of the same name... :)

            > ...
            > You see there are a few things windows users can do to receive better
            > service. It's time consuming for people to find the answers when they
            > do not use this platform ;) I got a bit pissed off because, despite
            > several attemps to ask more information or collaboration, the same
            > complain recur but no work has been done...

            I am interested in your response to the patch to your Benchmark
            package I posted in this thread on the 8th... while you clearly are
            not compelled to use it, I did go to the trouble (as you requested) of
            creating a patch that allows "transparent" use of your Makefile on
            Windows (with the easily constructed build environment described
            above). I also made a specific suggestion for an additional change to
            your package which aids in this "transparency".

            So, what do you think of my patch and suggestion? Are they useful, is
            there something wrong with either or both of them, or have you just
            not gotten around to them? ;)

            Robert Roessler
            robertr@...
            http://www.rftp.com
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.