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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0228BC57 for ; Wed, 12 May 2010 14:29:29 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiMCALs76ktKfVK0mGdsb2JhbACSeYsmCBUBAQEBAQgJDAcRIqtLAQWOMQEEhRI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,215,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="51078273" Received: from mail-wy0-f180.google.com ([74.125.82.180]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 12 May 2010 14:29:29 +0200 Received: by wyb32 with SMTP id 32so1673306wyb.39 for ; Wed, 12 May 2010 05:29:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:references :in-reply-to:subject:date:organization:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index :content-language; bh=ICQhI040T7h4glQiXyeEK4H5rndn5tf+B/M2C4wr1Y4=; b=I2fmv8vXzVGe/2LE/XZXdv4qTI4Pdj8B9zydPmG7G3rtmBZpEsA3Wsj6SeW21ZXoii VfiymmrBIYd3a9tFjeQh3MlMiHnlPcJiwi8qi2PuM9T2CzXk/06tl9J71+x+eeEitmji HHZekcY9LF6p+sxv2tougNc6PQLPjA7Ezkrp8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:organization:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; b=IMxYUixWurO8GJhjtjX9XFIjxj+W5QrYg54PMlF47rBjh+74JvuBVKYln3phGC78+L n5u/wiTGaVb4CFBmuQQKq8XX1mqbGPCMJvaYN+lW/zVGKBXdY/BW7mHkmkJs+wd3+jQa 6TP5reRRr20uw9bq3mZii/UPuK6zUdwsmIJ4E= Received: by 10.216.158.65 with SMTP id p43mr4523804wek.50.1273667369240; Wed, 12 May 2010 05:29:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from WinEight (87.114.183.77.plusnet.thn-ag1.dyn.plus.net [87.114.183.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g17sm85584wee.17.2010.05.12.05.29.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 12 May 2010 05:29:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Jon Harrop To: "'ben kuin'" , References: <951508.20587.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <201005061233.07551.peng.zang@gmail.com> <07b101caf08b$3e5022c0$baf06840$@com> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [Caml-list] about OcamIL Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 13:28:59 +0100 Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Message-ID: <088201caf1ce$b5060cb0$1f122610$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-index: Acrw/GKXVXnNkfigRSmO/YbWASUlcwAzKE4w Content-Language: en-gb X-Spam: no; 0.00; leaking:01 runtime:01 ml-like:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 runtime:01 model:01 cheers:01 examinations:98 2009:98 2009:98 wrote:01 unix:01 compile:01 caml-list:01 Ben Kuin wrote: > > A little off topic, but how is Mono/Unix these days? > >> Still leaks memory, > you refer to your examinations? > (http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/mono-22-still-leaks- > memory.html?showComment=1233522107493#c7872630239059031867) > where you say yes and the mono devs are say no to memory leaking? Yes. > >> has broken TCO > Again, I think other people do not have the same opion on this ( > http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/mono-does-not-support-tail- > calls.html) Yes. They are wrong. > I've introduced the post with some license related concerns, maybe I > should take a step back and think about what I want: > > 1. - programming in a ML like language ( especially the caml family > since I really like those lightweigt type definitions and the pattern > matching that can be applied on those) > > 2. - high performance runtime, preferably a jit based vm, no problems > with TCO > > 3. - a true open source license (approved by Open Source Initiative or > by Free Software Foundation) > > I think this 3 point are REASONABLE but the combination of those 3 > items is INEXISTENT. I'm afraid the situation is far worse. Even if you relax your conditions from "ML-like" to any functional language and even allow broken TCO, there are not only no language implementations satisfying those weaker conditions but nobody is even trying to create such a language implementation. > Ocaml on HLVM: I would appreciate if Jon could make a clear statement > if this is something serious or just a little toy. HLVM is not yet ready for serious use and it may well never compile OCaml but at least it is now compiling code like this: http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/variant-types-and-pattern-matchin g-in.html > A last idea: What do you think about libjit? They claim that a jvm/clr > like runtime could be built in weeks. Wouldn't it be nice to have a > fast vm for Ocaml (ocamljit) ? Does someone has experience with this, > I think writing a fast vm is hard, but a fast vm for a functional > language is nearly impossible? Maybe OcamIL could then be used as a > model for a jit backend, since its MSIL output already runs on libjit > (DotGnu, alias pnet) I think LLVM is a much better choice than libjit. Once you've got that kind of solid foundation to build upon and a decent language like OCaml to write in, you can write a decent FPL implementation in a few man-months. The problem is finding the time... Cheers, Jon.