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 OAA14718 for caml-red; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:24:46 +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 TAA06810 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 19:19:07 +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 f03IJ7T08682 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 19:19:07 +0100 (MET) Received: (from mottl@localhost) by miss.wu-wien.ac.at (8.9.0/8.9.0) id TAA01627; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 19:19:03 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 19:19:03 +0100 From: Markus Mottl To: "Joseph R. Kiniry" Cc: OCAML , Mattias Waldau Subject: Re: JIT-compilation for OCaml? Message-ID: <20010103191903.B29666@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> References: <20010102203051.A18481@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> <49780000.978544197@kind.kindsoftware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <49780000.978544197@kind.kindsoftware.com>; from kiniry@acm.org on Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:49:57 -0800 Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr On Wed, 03 Jan 2001, Joseph R. Kiniry wrote: > > No, I don't use it at all, but I believe you that it must be very > > painful ;) > > Not to go offtopic, but I'd rather see list members educated rather than > FUD'ded. If ML is a Prius we still have to respect the Taurus that is Java. There was a smiley after my criticism... - anyway, though I'd never want to switch to Java when I can use OCaml, it isn't this bad compared to other mainstream languages. At least some major insanities have been removed. > In fact, one of my companies chose Java over five competitor languages > (Objective-C, C++, Eiffel, CLOS, and oTcl) in a head-to-head test. Note > that this company is a group of uber-geeks with a language geek at the helm > (me), so we were not working in a vacuum. Why didn't you compare to OCaml or other FPLs (e.g. Haskell, Clean, etc.)? Business reasons? > Certainly the breadth and growth of Java's libraries is a marvel, but I > *certainly* wouldn't say that they are a uniform example of good design. > It amazes me that a package can go through so much semi-public design > review and still have serious design flaws. Until one uses a library on > large projects with many people for a some reasonable period of time, > claims of excellence, esp from the library vendor, are premature. It would be interesting to know what (except for GUI-stuff) people are missing in OCaml or other FPLs. I just haven't used Java often enough to know details about its libraries. - Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl