From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA07949 for caml-red; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:09:08 +0100 (MET) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA07722 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 16:54:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost.localdomain (cartman92.zip.com.au [61.8.20.220]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f03FsZT04792 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 16:54:36 +0100 (MET) Received: from ozemail.com.au (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA16389; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 02:51:53 +1100 Message-ID: <3A534A99.93817EA9@ozemail.com.au> Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:51:53 +1100 From: John Max Skaller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Markus Mottl CC: Mattias Waldau , OCAML Subject: Re: JIT-compilation for OCaml? References: <20010102170753.A4018@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> <20010102203051.A18481@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr Markus Mottl wrote: > > the reason is > > > > 1. Slow, slow > > 2. Big, big > > Maybe that's because the Java JIT-compilers were not written by Xavier? ;) IMHO: the reason is that Ocaml is based on theory, extended and modified over time with experience. Congratulations to the Ocaml team for refusing to compromise a sound theoretical basis. > But the JIT-compiled/interpreted byte code seems to be pretty fast: I have > tried it with a few mini-benchmarks to see whether this JIT-technology > is of any worth. Really not bad... Why bother? The native code compiler is so fast, it can compile a whole system faster than Java can load an already compiled one :-) > Certainly! I definitely don't want to replace the normal byte code > interpreter with a purely JIT-one. My motivation was rather portability + > speed rather than speed alone. For the latter "ocamlopt" is more than > good enough, and for portability we have the byte code compiler. Actually, I think ocamlopt is _more_ portable. There's no mucking around with custom run-times, etc. > I haven't tried the Java-libraries so far. The OCaml-ones are quite > usable, but if you can tell us what Java has that OCaml is missing, > just tell us (in time! ;) That's easy: a half way decent GUI. If Ocaml had a decent GUI API that worked on just X- and MS- Windows systems, it would be a killer. Tk just doesn't cut it anymore. GTK has promise, but the widgets are immature and lacking functionality. Java's Swing is a bit messy, but it does provide a rich variety of configurable widgets, and some documentation. :-( -- John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au 10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850 checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net