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 XAA31952 for caml-red; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 23:18:34 +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 BAA32751 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:30:46 +0100 (MET) Received: from codex.cis.upenn.edu (CODEX.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.6.15]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f050UjL19463 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:30:45 +0100 (MET) Received: (from mwh@localhost) by codex.cis.upenn.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f050Uas06293; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:30:36 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Hicks Message-Id: <200101050030.f050Uas06293@codex.cis.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: JIT-compilation for OCaml? To: mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at (Markus Mottl) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:30:36 -0500 (EST) Cc: skaller@ozemail.com.au, mattias.waldau@abc.se, caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <20010103185023.A29666@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> from "Markus Mottl" at Jan 3, 2001 06:50:23 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr > On Thu, 04 Jan 2001, John Max Skaller wrote: > > Actually, I think ocamlopt is _more_ portable. > > There's no mucking around with custom run-times, etc. > > Well, it would be really funny to see OCaml compete against Java in > the browser market (a rather unrealistic dream, I fear). Wasn't there a > basic WWW-browser written in OCaml? I am not sure, but I think it also > supported OCaml-byte code. MMM, the Ocaml-based web browser, still exists, see http://caml.inria.fr/archives/200005/msg00082.html. However, last I knew, the Ocaml bytecode lacks the security guarantees of Java bytecode. Dynamic linking will not violate stated interface constraints, but these can be spoofed, I believe. Mike -- Michael Hicks Ph.D. Candidate, the University of Pennsylvania http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~mwh mailto://mwh@dsl.cis.upenn.edu *There was a man who entered a local paper's pun contest; He sent in ten *different puns, in the hope that at least one of the puns would win. *Unfortunately, no pun in ten did.