From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA25236 for caml-red; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:04:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA28649 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:25:48 +0100 (MET) Received: from miss.wu-wien.ac.at (miss.wu-wien.ac.at [137.208.107.17]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f03EPlb15117 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:25:47 +0100 (MET) Received: (from mottl@localhost) by miss.wu-wien.ac.at (8.9.0/8.9.0) id PAA13571; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:25:46 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:25:46 +0100 From: Markus Mottl To: Mattias Waldau Cc: OCAML Subject: Re: JIT-compilation for OCaml? Message-ID: <20010103152546.A16891@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> References: <20010102203051.A18481@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from mattias.waldau@tacton.se on Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 14:23:17 +0100 Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr On Wed, 03 Jan 2001, Mattias Waldau wrote: > If you just want portability, then why not generate Java-byte code instead > of Ocaml-bytecode. Then you can distribute you Ocaml-applications in Jars. > And you can benefit from the JIT of SUN etc, for example SUN's latest JIT > called HotSpot. This would be a (pragmatic) possibility. As far as I have heard, OCaml byte code has advantages over and/or is cleaner than Java byte code. I am not competent here to judge this - details anybody? - Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl