From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C54CC7EE80 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 02:17:15 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of jon@ffconsultancy.com) identity=pra; client-ip=84.93.230.227; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-sender="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of jon@ffconsultancy.com) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=84.93.230.227; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-sender="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@avasout01.plus.net) identity=helo; client-ip=84.93.230.227; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-sender="postmaster@avasout01.plus.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvwCAMQBTVFUXebjgWdsb2JhbABDtFyRD4FpFg4BARYmKIIkAQEEAQgCMEQIAwIJGC4ZIxsCBAEdBQSHegrBe41igT2DQAOOL5xDgWo X-IPAS-Result: AvwCAMQBTVFUXebjgWdsb2JhbABDtFyRD4FpFg4BARYmKIIkAQEEAQgCMEQIAwIJGC4ZIxsCBAEdBQSHegrBe41igT2DQAOOL5xDgWo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,896,1355094000"; d="scan'208";a="8920149" Received: from avasout01.plus.net ([84.93.230.227]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 23 Mar 2013 02:17:15 +0100 Received: from XPS ([46.208.152.44]) by avasout01 with smtp id EpHE1l0010xjwkW01pHFtW; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 01:17:15 +0000 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=HO4d4PRv c=1 sm=1 a=wENtliGTsFWVwbXJfEkUuw==:17 a=PcxEMZpPzg4A:10 a=Xub9RBUEA-sA:10 a=Kvk-SOs2Z7YA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=r2vSxAw-AAAA:8 a=fP-f-03R_oAA:10 a=ucpO34dTrxSm56m3UKUA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=wENtliGTsFWVwbXJfEkUuw==:117 X-AUTH: jdh302:2500 Reply-To: From: "Jon Harrop" To: "'Chet Murthy'" , References: <01c401ce274a$785ff1e0$691fd5a0$@ffconsultancy.com> <29025F595E9343479E21A54CC92048AA@erratique.ch> <54562612.dHlMTtysyv@groupon> In-Reply-To: <54562612.dHlMTtysyv@groupon> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 01:17:33 -0000 Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. Message-ID: <01fc01ce2764$32e64e10$98b2ea30$@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGbDIvrQFC0hqYsznfX8ZeLYj+sAAHKvwcCAbJQoCIBqA75rpjvgEHg Content-Language: en-gb Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Re: Haskell vs OCaml Chet Murthy wrote: > No OSS language runtime can afford that. > ... > This is hard, expensive, and will never happen for a language runtime maintained by an open-source community. That amount of effort might not be expected for such a language but I would not neglect some opportunities that OCaml does have to improve this. For example, LLVM and Clang could be used to help autogenerate bindings to C libraries. That would be a big step up from where OCaml is today and would yield dividends across the board. > So .... why should you use ocaml instead of a CLR-based language (like F#)? > Well, as Daniel Bunzli said, maybe you shouldn't. Exactly. Yaron's assertions that OCaml is highly productive, efficient and reliably are not universally applicable. Which raises the question of when they are applicable? The OCaml distribution itself is certainly very reliable but is also very limited in capability so I see no merit in restricting consideration to just that. Indeed, LablGL was always reliable provided the code was compiled on the machine it was run on and not distributed as a binary. > But I would note that your experience would be no different if you were > using Python, Perl, Ruby, or PHP. I'm not convinced. I think part of the problem may have been linking between statically-compiled OCaml code and libraries like OpenGL. With Python, the OpenGL bindings would have been compiled for a specific binary distro which might affect reliability. Cheers, Jon.