On 11/04/2011 05:55 AM, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote:
The other reason is that we haven't tried Batteries or Core enough yet, we have constraints, and we must make sure that if we rely on the some library, the library fit these constraints. For example, I know that Core has not been tested on Windows, and I don't know for Batteries. Also, we want to separate between "lang" and "system", i.e. modules that can be implemented with the core language, and modules that have system dependencies.
Batteries works for me under Windows, although it's not heavily tested. It's pure ocaml (no C stubs), and the build system is a thin `make` wrapper on top of ocamlbuild.
Finally, unlike other companies using OCaml, we want to provide support on the language itself, which means the compilers, other dev tools, and also basic libraries. So, at some point, we will have to contribute to either Core or Batteries, or both, but before that, we need to think more about our own idea of what a good standard library should be, to choose the best candidate from our point of view.
I agree there's a need for a good conversation about what a good standard library should be, and am interested in hearing more your point of view.
E. -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
