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 CFFB5BC57 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 14:07:48 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjgEALsr7ktCxGR8e2dsb2JhbACRVIxCAQEWIgMfqkuCAIRsiHwBBAQBgmkIghoEg0A X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,236,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="51203555" Received: from web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com ([66.196.100.124]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 15 May 2010 14:07:48 +0200 Received: (qmail 26713 invoked by uid 60001); 15 May 2010 12:07:47 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1273925267; bh=fuAzRYBz3/Ry50xWE6TnlXjCUU9s/bf5CaChpJp7TH4=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=2F5cNp2QysK2p1qBsciov53Osy84scCbIRXifhQSKRwsnKWpmRdy7ZOAErteonH+br7fA+KeIj9Y/EFR1iJwmNzN8lhTqgMkE58PfUSkTG2rxsE70Cp8o0EJZzqV5BbwagRY4szMBLWmy/j6GTqGfi22NpF8UgzsGfT4aXb9xPo= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=rlq7fjUHgi8AeYvsfZJBi2LnwSDXF7WwCDtQryZ5yxMNBT8YIXbVKTz7qcbQ9tOrbedt1uPlyTxMtsiW3ttlH0HUY2yjSMxGY8CdhjKyMcpbZa+14LAvBRi4hLLM9pODbQv3jGESg2Ev6PkptOE5k8eGCrfAQZqQ2OClML0S4Ck=; Message-ID: <390405.26123.qm@web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: qWSg7P8VM1kfd5mh2V9LwPg4PgTalSSsI.ZWP0CzAAx.rJ_ YHE2.F7LgsISpZCd4QaANvDdFeIZ6sx9qEKP6A6HqDocS4U6DKLt7Gh4dn_6 SHuJ33iwefYvpLZNlYhaCVVi6WOo5nYvUaCLkAcRn7kEWhCV3nklnJ9Lb.k9 y_omAe602D5hk3Ulx_xQ0zWmARrXjBAQdz57gg3fI2OwVwiQXSo5ZZ2rhH03 mZtR8laS0EKTEpCv3w5inIUDwdsyPgsKjs5tJWqCL5xEmjJrHYE9hf1lXTCZ cBEg6tXSiNHQpnf70nqiqB1.BR9lw2z.n0PCgLmiqSnHtrXCNYlu9ft3_52Q WnlMnGcSXyEyDR3wPnrhEFHZzGNd60mE6X5EI34OX4wKfT4lsZw-- Received: from [72.93.172.52] by web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 15 May 2010 05:07:47 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/10.1.11 YahooMailWebService/0.8.103.269680 Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 05:07:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Ed Keith Subject: Re: [Caml-list] about OcamIL To: caml-list@inria.fr, ben kuin In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocamlopt:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 showstopper:01 ocaml's:01 10,:98 blog:98 wrote:01 binaries:01 binaries:01 homogeneous:01 caml-list:01 native:03 native:03 apps:04 --- On Sat, 5/15/10, ben kuin wrote: > >> 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. > > I'd call that a questionable decision. 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. > > 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. I have worked in many environments, most have been homogeneous, none have had more then four platforms. Supporting four platforms is not difficult if your tools support all four platforms (unfortunately Ocaml's support for Windows is a bit spotty). Running a VM, no matter how good, is always going to carry a performance hit. If your code is UI intensive, that may be acceptable (although I find the startup time for the JVM to be a problem), but if your code is memory or CPU intensive a VM may be unaceptable. -EdK Ed Keith e_d_k@yahoo.com Blog: edkeith.blogspot.com