RE: [Caml-list] about OcamIL

[forum@x9c.fr]

Jon Harrop <jonathandeanharrop@googlemail.com> a écrit :

> Ben Kuin wrote:

>> I've introduced the post with some license related concerns, maybe I
>> should take a step back and think about what I want:
>>
>> 1. - programming in a ML like language ( especially the caml family
>> since I really like those lightweigt type definitions and the pattern
>> matching that can be applied on those)
>>
>> 2. - high performance runtime, preferably a jit based vm, no problems
>> with TCO
>>
>> 3. - a true open source license (approved by Open Source Initiative or
>> by Free Software Foundation)
>>
>> I think this 3 point are REASONABLE but the combination of those 3
>> items is INEXISTENT.
>
> I'm afraid the situation is far worse. Even if you relax your conditions
> from "ML-like" to any functional language and even allow broken TCO, there
> are not only no language implementations satisfying those weaker conditions
> but nobody is even trying to create such a language implementation.

Putting aside an answer I posted this morning on a parallel thread,
I will just present some counter examples to this claim.

Limiting myself to the JVM, and not even trying to be exhaustive, I  
can find...

... in the LISP family :
   - Clojure - http://clojure.org/ - Eclipse Public License

... in the Scheme family :
   - Bigloo - http://www-sop.inria.fr/indes/fp/Bigloo/ - GPL / LGPL
   - Kawa - http://www.gnu.org/software/kawa/ - X11 / MIT license
   - SISC - http://sisc-scheme.org/ - GPL

... in the ML family:
   - Yeti - http://mth.github.com/yeti/

... in the Haskell family:
   - CAL - http://openquark.org/Open_Quark/Welcome.html - BSD-like license

... in its own family:
   - Scala - http://www.scala-lang.org


Moreover, at least Scala and Bigloo deliver excellent performances.


Regards,

Xavier Clerc