From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9C08BB81 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:19:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id jAJKJk1H023137 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:19:46 +0100 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 VAA15310 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:19:45 +0100 (MET) Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de (einhorn.in-berlin.de [192.109.42.8]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id jAJKJjAv022811 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:19:45 +0100 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de X-Envelope-To: Received: from first.in-berlin.de (e178055100.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.55.100]) (authenticated bits=0) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-4) with ESMTP id jAJKJhmv005605 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:19:44 +0100 Received: by first.in-berlin.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id C97E5196B1B; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:19:05 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:19:05 +0100 From: Oliver Bandel To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: Yet another OCaml Webserver?! (was: Re: [Caml-list] Yet another sudoku solver (838 bytes)) Message-ID: <20051119201905.GA1549@first.in-berlin.de> References: <20051119150931.GB324@first.in-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 437F88E2.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 437F88E1.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; oliver:01 bandel:01 oliver:01 in-berlin:01 ocaml:01 caml-list:01 solver:01 bytecode:01 bytecode:01 ocaml:01 838:98 wrote:01 imho:01 imho:01 ideally:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.9 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO,PLING_QUERY autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 Hello Jonathan, On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:09:29AM +1300, Jonathan Roewen wrote: > > Where are other interesting applications, which can show people > > the power of this language - especially safety/security of an application? > > This is a major goal of Desert Spring-Time. Well, this is one single project, but it's a good attempt. :) > Whilst using bytecode, it Why using bytecode? > will probably not be very performant (ocamljit will help a small > amount here I think) compared to say a native code version. > > However, the goals are: reliability, safety, and not so important: > portability. If portability is not so important (for now?!), why not using native code? > I think processors are more than fast enough these days > to accomodate a slower running kernel environment Well, the kernel is very important... if it is slow, so the whole system is slower... this is different to a fast kernel/operating system, where only one application is a littlebis slower. But: if the kernel is less used and the main time the program is in usermode (not kernel mode), then the speed of the kernel is not sooooo much a big problem. But the kernel is the part of the system, which is central... so IMHO it should be very fast! > .. in fact, the > mpeg2 decoder project should help prove/disprove this theory. well... IMHO graphic card drivers is not ideally done in OCaml, and not in C... at least certain parts would necessaryly be coded in Assembler... ...but if you can show the opposite, that's fine. ;-) Ciao, Oliver