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 mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 955257EE86 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:27:36 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of jon@ffconsultancy.com) identity=pra; client-ip=84.93.230.235; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-sender="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of jon@ffconsultancy.com) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=84.93.230.235; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-sender="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@avasout07.plus.net) identity=helo; client-ip=84.93.230.235; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-sender="postmaster@avasout07.plus.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArACAEUaqVBUXebrlWdsb2JhbABFgkm3CQGJXCMBAQEBCQsJCRIpgh4BAQUIAh0GTA0DAgkRAQMBASgHGQglAwYIAgQBEgsFh2sDEwe1Jg2JVIkdgi6FdgONdIYzgnGKFogA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.83,275,1352070000"; d="scan'208,217";a="162902532" Received: from avasout07.plus.net ([84.93.230.235]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2012 18:27:29 +0100 Received: from WinEight ([46.208.114.130]) by avasout07 with smtp id R5TT1k0062osE1J015TU6s; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:27:29 +0000 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=NJFXCjGg c=1 sm=1 a=ed27cldjFerWXI38i2tNxQ==:17 a=Gx_mUJMDI1cA:10 a=Xub9RBUEA-sA:10 a=r2vSxAw-AAAA:8 a=mHYtrs7u0r4A:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=033O-SZg2DXxQcedmugA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=khOJthl6tAXHBQxoMlsA:9 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=tXsnliwV7b4A:10 a=AOLkJbUluZAouX-5:21 a=ed27cldjFerWXI38i2tNxQ==:117 From: "Jon Harrop" To: "'Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons'" , "'Gabriel Scherer'" Cc: "'caml-list'" References: In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:26:56 -0000 Message-ID: <036e01cdc5b1$e97a1db0$bc6e5910$@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_036F_01CDC5B1.E9801120" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHRhSi3KMPwwcLGPCglYWHrCxQ3gQHeZ4jSAm9kcxmXxerTAA== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Why isn't there a common platform for functional language interaction ? This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_036F_01CDC5B1.E9801120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Agreed! Being able to share FFI bindings would be even more useful. Cheers, Jon. From: Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons [mailto:dofp.ocaml@gmail.com] Sent: 10 December 2011 20:44 To: Gabriel Scherer Cc: caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why isn't there a common platform for functional language interaction ? Caml-list On 10 December 2011 13:58, Gabriel Scherer wrote: There already exist such a common denominator language. For performance reasons, it is architecture-dependent [...] There have been plans to move to a better common denominator, or at least a better bridge language (C--, LLVM, ...) Why should that be a low-level language ? Why not core-ML ? What I see as the very first issue is the spread of the efforts between similar yet incompatible ML dialects leading to 4 weak communities (SML, OCaml, F#, Haskell) instead of a really strong one and all the related problems that come with it (fewer books, risk for industrials, work duplication, inefficient funding, lack of visibility, etc). Example : there is an excellent whole source code optimiser ... for SML. And an award winning SMT solver ... in Caml developed in a company that invests heavily in information-centric web applications ... in F# (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/z3/ if you don't know Nikolaj Bjorner's Z3). Now say you want to do an application that delivers optimal electricity production plans. What language do you choose ? Just being able to reuse the source-code between string ML dialects even after recompilation (X -> CoreML -> specific platform) would be an improvement. Diego Olivier ------=_NextPart_000_036F_01CDC5B1.E9801120 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Agreed! B= eing able to share FFI bindings would be even more useful.

 

Cheers,

Jon.=

 <= /p>

From: = Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons [mailto:dofp.ocaml@gmail.com]
Sent:= 10 December 2011 20:44
To: Gabriel Scherer
Cc: caml-li= st
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why isn't there a common platform for= functional language interaction ?

 

    = Caml-list

On 10 December 2011 13:58, Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer@gmail.c= om> wrote:

 <= /o:p>

There already exist such a common denominator language. Forperformance reasons, it is architecture-dependent 

[...]

There have been plans to move to a b= etter common denominator, or at
least a better bridge language (C--, LLV= M, ...)


Why should= that be a low-level language ? Why not core-ML ?

What I see as the = very first issue is the spread of the efforts between similar yet incompati= ble ML dialects leading to 4 weak communities (SML, OCaml, F#, Haskell) ins= tead of a really strong one and all the related problems that come with it = (fewer books, risk for industrials, work duplication, inefficient funding, = lack of visibility, etc).

Example : there is an excellent whole sour= ce code optimiser ... for SML. And an award winning SMT solver ... in Caml = developed in a company that invests heavily in information-centric web appl= ications ... in F# (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/r= edmond/projects/z3/ if you don't know Nikolaj Bjorner's Z3). Now say yo= u want to do an application that delivers optimal electricity production pl= ans. What language do you choose ?

Just being able to reuse the sour= ce-code between string ML dialects even after recompilation (X -> CoreML= -> specific platform) would be an improvement.

   = ;     Diego Olivier

= ------=_NextPart_000_036F_01CDC5B1.E9801120--