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=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51AADBC37 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:02:18 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: At4DAKfjtErAbSoIgWdsb2JhbACbCQEBFiSwcIQbBYJLggE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,416,1249250400"; d="scan'208";a="34602331" Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 Sep 2009 23:02:17 +0200 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de X-Envelope-To: Received: from localhost (okapi.in-berlin.de [192.109.42.117]) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id n8JL2HEv007921 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:02:17 +0200 Received: from e178036052.adsl.alicedsl.de (e178036052.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.36.52]) by webmail.in-berlin.de (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:02:17 +0200 Message-ID: <20090919230217.401810j08edzs6hl@webmail.in-berlin.de> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:02:17 +0200 From: "Oliver Bandel" To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Scilab: Why not written in OCaml? References: <20090919005953.20724aglhumqekfd@webmail.in-berlin.de> <200909191623.16363.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <4d1b2df20909191003h357f3b8fr97dee44022c81034@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4d1b2df20909191003h357f3b8fr97dee44022c81034@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.3.3 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 X-Spam: no; 0.00; bandel:01 in-berlin:01 scilab:01 ocaml:01 bigloo:01 compiler:01 www-sop:01 bigloo:01 ocaml:01 recursive:01 recursions:01 haskell:01 oliver:01 oliver:01 stack:01 Hi, Zitat von "Philippe Wang" : > Why not use Bigloo? It's a efficient scheme compiler, also developed =20 > at INRIA. > http://www-sop.inria.fr/mimosa/fp/Bigloo/ [...] I looked at bigloo before I came to OCaml. I decided against it. Not only because of schem's ((((())))()(()()))))))-terror ;-) but also (main reason) because of this: "Bigloo produces C files. C code uses the C stack, so some programs can?t be properly tail recursive. Nevertheless all simple tail recursions are compiled without stack consumption." This was not really inspiring confidence. Even if I did not really know much about that topic tailrec-topic, it seemed to be a basic feature, and other scheme implementations did =20 not have such a limitation... ...then I had contact to Haskell and Ocaml and decided OCaml to be my =20 favourite. I never looked at bigloo again, but that quote above is from the =20 bigloo-documentation that I just now downloaded to assure the point =20 has not changed during the last years. > > Just kidding, [...] oh, I saw this too late;-) Ciao, Oliver