From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F1CBC57 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 14:17:10 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqwEAF8t7ktKfVK2gGdsb2JhbACdeQgVAQEUJCKqSYIAhG8uiE4BAQMFgmkIghoE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,236,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="50655969" Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com ([74.125.82.182]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 15 May 2010 14:17:10 +0200 Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so2226411wyg.27 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 05:17:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:cc:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:x-mailer; bh=6qmEeqJyG+1v8LqLh9yvuC/sAN9TZhFvPyjCIO8IDig=; b=m4Xetx8Esva7gtc5B2evrLnlLxCXjMs0wbcH8DI4Lc+7rOEbK1HZWa3cqEYD7nU8Eg vqYA3l1quukiIZ9UvdDcJaLwUqjc/YeodoQdHa44QMTWnF8DwzdwCWop2+3ZbD2E5Tkz NDoW+6zwH4k8Imtuz5FenROuxRF7KPd29rNTk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :x-mailer; b=i+6OlsMz3tixeCbQNyZA6HDQMsKYztSVH9jyI4BvH8kAW0iEoeyACI9uDjRfCCKJ5a 0OvB5rVK/UOP3KIT/FjNl/1R19wfpuA1ZkunqwIcGUzYHPoWPx+7EzbK/fc8AB9NhHkF 0s5EV4SLBUDlDTgO2HhPCVPA/7ds55gkOQPz8= Received: by 10.227.143.200 with SMTP id w8mr1336385wbu.9.1273925829643; Sat, 15 May 2010 05:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.11] (tui75-1-81-57-73-233.fbx.proxad.net [81.57.73.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l23sm24178062wbb.2.2010.05.15.05.17.07 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 15 May 2010 05:17:07 -0700 (PDT) Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Message-Id: <03A0495B-0850-4799-A01F-D5EABBA51DEC@gmail.com> From: Vincent Aravantinos To: ben kuin In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] about OcamIL Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 14:17:05 +0200 References: <87fx1uh5r5.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <49505E67-4974-4F0B-A6B7-0E87214E92BB@gmail.com> <20100515104348.7c6b4fd2.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocamlopt:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 showstopper:01 showstopper:01 developpers:01 binaries:01 binaries:01 caml-list:01 binary:02 binary:02 native:03 native:03 seems:03 apps:04 Le 15 mai 10 =E0 11:45, ben kuin a =E9crit : >>> What if ocamlopt would be dropped for a faster ocaml vm? >> >> Why? Even if the Ocaml was able to target a faster VM, there >> are still many people who would chose to generate native >> binaries. > > I'd call that a questionable decision. As far as I know, using native > binaries means to open a whole range of potentially uncorrectionable > problems with abi incomptabilities between libraries or with changes > of the underlying os. > > As far as I know when you go native you always have to take abi > incompatibility and therefore recompilation into account. For business > apps, that's a showstopper. Aren't most Windows applications binary ones? Not all Windows apps are .Net based, or run on a whatever vm. Most others are binary, aren't they? If yes it seems this has not been a big showstopper to Windows apps =20 developpers... Maybe I don't get the precise sense of "binary". V.=