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 mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E940DBC57 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 02:43:55 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArcBAKeL7UvLOwFriWdsb2JhbACSBYwAFQEBAQoLEREEHr4ihRAE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,234,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="62848586" Received: from unknown (HELO outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out2.iinet.net.au) ([203.59.1.107]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 15 May 2010 02:43:55 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqEGAGqL7UvLzuai/2dsb2JhbACSBYwAcb4ghRAE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,234,1272816000"; d="scan'208";a="654814692" Received: from unknown (HELO hendrix.mega-nerd.net) ([203.206.230.162]) by outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out2.iinet.net.au with ESMTP; 15 May 2010 08:43:48 +0800 Received: from hendrix.mnn (hendrix.mnn [192.168.200.99]) by hendrix.mega-nerd.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 94FD1106E86 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 10:43:48 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 10:43:48 +1000 From: Erik de Castro Lopo To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] about OcamIL Message-Id: <20100515104348.7c6b4fd2.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20100512151137.26894ywcpv71ixvk@imp.ovh.net> <012601caf351$e9a362e0$bcea28a0$@com> <87fx1uh5r5.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <49505E67-4974-4F0B-A6B7-0E87214E92BB@gmail.com> Reply-To: caml-list@inria.fr Organization: Erik Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.16.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocamlopt:01 ocaml:01 wrote:01 binaries:01 binaries:01 caml-list:01 unsafe:01 supported:02 native:03 native:03 erik:04 erik:04 compiled:04 preferable:06 ben kuin wrote: > I assume it's save to say that most today (business) critical > applications have to be written in a vm supported language. Why do you assume that? The only evidence to support this is the widespead usage of Java and C#, but I think that is a language choice rather than a conscious decision to use a language that runs on a VM. People chose Java and C# because they are preferable to fundamentally unsafe langauges like C and C++. > What if ocamlopt would be dropped for a faster ocaml vm? Why? Even if the Ocaml was able to target a faster VM, there are still many people who would chose to generate native binaries. Erik (who uses Ocaml compiled to native binaries for mission critical code) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/