From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p3RKuCsq030891
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:56:13 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIEABCCuE3UGyoFkWdsb2JhbACYQ40uFAEBAQEJCwsHFAMixE6FdgSScA+KAA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,276,1301868000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="106937512"
Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.5])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2011 22:56:09 +0200
Received: from yeeloong (unknown [82.67.194.89])
	by smtp5-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 845A7D481B4
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:56:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by yeeloong (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:55:38 +0200
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:55:38 +0200
From: rixed@happyleptic.org
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Message-ID: <20110427205537.GB8872@yeeloong.happyleptic.org>
References: <fa.6Y/ymCKnZgZmswumjjdnkchP1wI@ifi.uio.no>
 <f4f20ee4-05d9-474e-a143-a4dbe077f32c@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
 <BANLkTinLGk9mArx83R0gNjKRpv6eg9YLaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110427171618.GA4078@yeeloong.happyleptic.org>
 <BANLkTikqnLsADbYULr6K1XPYcOP=0icsKw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikqnLsADbYULr6K1XPYcOP=0icsKw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Pros and cons of different GL bindings ?

-[ Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:46:21AM -0700, David Sheets ]----
> We are actively investigating compiling a strict OCaml subset
> (directly semantically translatable to recursion-less GLSL) to
> GLSL/Javascript for numeric library portability and algebraic
> simplification of shaders.

I really like the idea of compiling an ocaml subset into GLSL but I
don't see why the very same compiler should be limited to webgl. Isn't
webgl using the same shading language than stock opengl ?