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 XAA28107 for caml-red; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 23:20:31 +0100 (MET)
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 NAA19872 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:55:44 +0100 (MET)
Received: from dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.6.1])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f05Cti907312
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:55:44 +0100 (MET)
Received: from lambda.u-strasbg.fr (lambda.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.90.63])
	by dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22632;
	Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:54:26 +0100
Received: from luther by lambda.u-strasbg.fr with local (Exim 3.20 #1 (Debian))
	id 14EWMc-0001LQ-00; Fri, 05 Jan 2001 13:52:58 +0100
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:52:58 +0100
To: "Joseph R. Kiniry" <kiniry@acm.org>
Cc: OCAML <caml-list@inria.fr>, Markus Mottl <mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at>,
        Mattias Waldau <mattias.waldau@abc.se>
Subject: Re: JIT-compilation for OCaml?
Message-ID: <20010105135258.C5122@lambda.u-strasbg.fr>
References: <20010103195832.A30893@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> <70270000.978548769@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: <70270000.978548769@kind.kindsoftware.com>; from kiniry@acm.org on Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:06:09AM -0800
From: Sven LUTHER <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>
Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr

On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:06:09AM -0800, Joseph R. Kiniry wrote:
> --On Wednesday, January 03, 2001 19:58:32 +0100 Markus Mottl 
> <mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> wrote:
> > How is the situation in France? Isn't (O)Caml used in most universities /
> > hautes ecoles for teaching? There should be much more "programmer supply"
> > over there (but probably not enough "venture capital supply" as compared
> > to the US...).
> >
> > I do not really follow your concerns about Open Source: OCaml is pretty
> > "free" as are most other FPLs. Or do you mean something else?
> 
> I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit.  I meant that if you are 
> developing and Open Source product and you'd like large scale involvement, 
> choosing OCaml as a source language isn't in your best interest.  While it 
> is true that you are likely to get higher quality people involved, the 
> source pool is several orders of magnitude smaller than that of Java.

A, yes, but is it not said that ocaml programs are easier to write and smaller
in size, thus easier to maintain ? would this not compensate the lower number
of available developpers ?

BTW, about the amiga/TAO stuff ? what is your feeling about the virtual code
or whatever they call it ? i had the feeling that it was very i386 like, but
haven't looked at it very long, but it would make it kind of a heresy to
longtime amiga users ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther