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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F6F8BC57 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 23:45:52 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlYCAH6y7kvLOwFre2dsb2JhbACSAot+FQEBFiIEHroCgm4IghoE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,237,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="51214579" Received: from outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out2.iinet.net.au ([203.59.1.107]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 15 May 2010 23:45:50 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArsFAMCy7kvLzuai/2dsb2JhbACSAot+cbl7gm4IghoE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,237,1272816000"; d="scan'208";a="656867215" Received: from unknown (HELO hendrix.mega-nerd.net) ([203.206.230.162]) by outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out2.iinet.net.au with ESMTP; 16 May 2010 05:45:47 +0800 Received: from hendrix.mnn (hendrix.mnn [192.168.200.99]) by hendrix.mega-nerd.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4CD69106E93 for ; Sun, 16 May 2010 07:45:47 +1000 (EST) Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 07:45:47 +1000 From: Erik de Castro Lopo To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] about OcamIL Message-Id: <20100516074547.9ef4522f.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> In-Reply-To: References: <87fx1uh5r5.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <49505E67-4974-4F0B-A6B7-0E87214E92BB@gmail.com> <20100515104348.7c6b4fd2.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.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 pointers:01 allocating:01 ocaml:01 haskell:01 ocaml's:01 showstopper:01 blog:98 garbage:01 garbage:01 wrote:01 binaries:01 binaries:01 caml-list:01 binary:02 ben kuin wrote: > English is not my first language, maybe I misunderstand, but what > you're are saying here sound like a complete contradiction to me: > Like you say C and C++ are considered as 'unsafe' languages. Yes. One can't really program in those languages without using pointers and manually allocating/deallocating memory. > But thats > because they offer features, that are not available when programming > for a vm. This has nothing to do with languages, it's a conscious > platform decision. Yes, many languages (native compiled Ocaml and Haskell are just two) have garbage collection and are fundamentally safe. > I'd call that a questionable decision. I call requiring a VM one more potential point of failure. > As far as I know, using native > binaries means to open a whole range of potentially uncorrectionable > problems with abi incomptabilities between libraries or with changes > of the underlying os. My experience says otherwise. My experience consists of having lots of small self contained programs, written in Ocaml and distributed using the Debian packaging system. Binary incompatibilities always get found during development and developer testing and QA. I find Ocaml native binaries far more reliable that those of C and C++ and that reliability is due to garbage collection, and the fact that Ocaml's type system helps prevent bugs. > As far as I know when you go native you always have to take abi > incompatibility and therefore recompilation into account. For business > apps, that's a showstopper. You have no idea just how much you are overstating the case. > Would you mind to share some infos about your experiences, maybe on your > blog? There's really not much to share. Its programs written in Ocaml and distributed to the client machines via the Debian packaging system. Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/