Caveat: I'm one of the authors of Batteries (although I've been out of touch for a year now) and the author of the about page linked above.
The big differences are the following:
Core is used daily in an industrial environment, while afaik Batteries doesn't have the same following
Core is maintained by one company, while Batteries is community-maintained
afaik (but I can be wrong), Core doesn't accept submissions or feature requests, while Batteries does
Batteries aims to accept any program written for OCaml's standard library, while Core doesn't aim to maintain backward-compatibility
Batteries used to come with additional external tools (they're not in the standard distribution at the moment, but I hope they'll return as an additional package), e.g. an improved toplevel, a compiler that requires zero configuration to use Batteries instead of OCaml's stdlib, etc.
Batteries comes with additional language extensions e.g. to handle Unicode natively, with a new, safer and more extensible printf, etc.
Batteries comes with lots of documentation, while last time I checked, Core didn't.
发布评论
评论（2）
警告：我是《电池》的作者之一（尽管我已经失去联系一年了），也是上面链接的“关于”页面的作者。
最大的区别如下：
printf等。BatteriesPS：是的，ExtLib 现在是电池的子集。
Caveat: I'm one of the authors of Batteries (although I've been out of touch for a year now) and the author of the about page linked above.
The big differences are the following:
printf, etc.P.S.: Yes, ExtLib is now a subset of Batteries.
关于页面的电池似乎包含与回答此问题的其他库的比较
（向下滚动到“与其他库的关系”）
http://batteries.forge.ocamlcore.org/doc.preview:batteries-alpha3/html/about.html
The Batteries about page seems to include a comparison to other libraries that answers this question
(scroll down to "Relations to other libraries")
http://batteries.forge.ocamlcore.org/doc.preview:batteries-alpha3/html/about.html