From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id EAA08057; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 04:15:05 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA10308 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 04:15:03 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2M3FXKW004036 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 04:15:35 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp114-118.lns1.syd3.internode.on.net [150.101.114.118]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i2M3EnUK066220; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:44:50 +1030 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] extensible records again From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Oleg Trott Cc: skaller@users.sourceforge.net, Michael Vanier , caml-list In-Reply-To: <405DD298.109@columbia.edu> References: <20040321062143.BE7D29BBA2@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu> <405D4D77.2030403@columbia.edu> <20040321084008.429279BBA2@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu> <405DBE78.5020609@columbia.edu> <1079888775.3165.11.camel@pelican.wigram> <405DD298.109@columbia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1079925585.3165.37.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 22 Mar 2004 14:19:46 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 extensible:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 oleg:01 vyper:01 python:01 vyper:01 ocamlopt:01 abandoning:01 stackless:01 passing:01 implemented:01 python:01 9660:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 292 On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 04:36, Oleg Trott wrote: > >My Vyper interpreter (a Python interpreter written in Ocaml) > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > Compared to the interpretation overhead, I don't think you'll see any > difference in performance, not by a long shot. In Vyper it was quite significant. > If I were writing a dynamically-typed language implementation in O'Caml, > I'd _compile_ it _to_ O'Caml (as opposed to interpreting the language) Unfortunately, Ocamlopt isn't capable of dynamic loading. This was one of the reasons for abandoning Vyper. The other was the difficulty of providing stackless operation, i.e. the inability to provide a continuation passing based implementation. This could probably have been done if I'd implemented a significantly more complex system than the simple mapping of functional code to functional code I actually provided. Don't be confused here: The task was to provide a Python system, not an arbitrary interpreter. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners