From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9503BBAF for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 17:39:41 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvACAC9bEUnUnw4Tgmdsb2JhbACCRpFTAQEJDQgHEwO4c4NT X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,551,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="16894509" Received: from pih-relay06.plus.net ([212.159.14.19]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 05 Nov 2008 17:39:41 +0100 Received: from [87.114.2.42] (helo=leper.local) by pih-relay06.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1KxlPr-0001j3-84; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:39:35 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: =?utf-8?q?J=C3=A9r=C3=A9mie_Dimino?= Subject: Re: [Caml-list] What does Jane Street use/want for an IDE? What about you? Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 17:41:37 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr References: <200810200919.41561.ober.14@osu.edu> <200811042336.48392.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <874p2mw2s8.fsf@aurora.crans.org> In-Reply-To: <874p2mw2s8.fsf@aurora.crans.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811051741.37388.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: 657da8ce803246ce91bf1dbc6a21fce4 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 run-time:01 frog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 unsafe:01 writes:01 binding:02 objects:02 objects:02 languages:03 languages:03 opt:04 problem:05 On Wednesday 05 November 2008 16:33:43 J=C3=A9r=C3=A9mie Dimino wrote: > Jon Harrop writes: > > I'd forget about that and just focus on making the whole of Qt4 availab= le > > safely from OCaml in any form first. Even this is an unsolved problem in > > the OCaml world! > > I suggest an idea. I know that Qt4 offer some facility to export > objects trough DBus [1]. So one can write a small C++ application that > allow other applications to create Qt objects and export them, then > use Qt in ocaml via DBus. > > Here are the advantages i see: > > - the C++ code and the ocaml code would run in different processes, so > we do not have to care about all the C++isms of Qt in the ocaml > application. > > - this would make Qt available to any languages that have DBus. > For ocaml i am currently writing a pure ocaml DBus implementation [2]. Yes, that's exactly the kind of loose binding I would opt for. Good thinkin= g! There's still the question of how to write the C++ bit. Longer term,=20 generating C++ at run-time using the LLVM's CLang project might be an=20 alluring option but I'd still value process separation as long as unsafe=20 languages are in the mix. =2D-=20 Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e