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 KAA17444 for caml-red; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:17:33 +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 JAA15143 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:25:19 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost.localdomain (kenny77.zip.com.au [61.8.18.205]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f0C8PGD16268 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:25:17 +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 TAA07143; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:23:32 +1100 Message-ID: <3A5EBF04.FF4B72E0@ozemail.com.au> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:23:32 +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: Dave Berry CC: Markus Mottl , OCAML Subject: Re: JIT-compilation for OCaml? References: <3145774E67D8D111BE6E00C0DF418B663AD717@nt.kal.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr Dave Berry wrote: > > By "component", I mean an object with methods, asynchronous events, and > settable properties, working in containers that know how to embed these > components. The origin of this approach was (I think) the Andrew project at > CMU, many years ago. ML modules are different. OK. I think we'd agree roughly on what a 'component' is. > As for whether these are "right" or "wrong", this depends on whether you > want to work in a small purist community or interact with the wider world. That isn't how I see it. Pragmatically, we must use available technology, even if it is faulty, since _all_ the available technology is faulty. For me, the issue is to recognize the flaws, and work towards fixing them, or finding a better solution -- probably at the same time as continuing to use better understood but flawed technology when the commerical risks don't justify trying something more experimental. To this end, I can understand why you might choose Java as an implementation language: but I think a large part of that choice is driven by non-expert perceptions (of, for example, shareholders and clients), rather than by technical evaluations. Perhaps by expertise biases my opinion. For example, a lot of Windows code is developed using MFC, which I believe is pretty bad. I'd never bother, since I can develop similar but better functionality as required more quickly than learn the quirks of an ugly system. Except in the case of applets, I'd never use Java, since I know C++ well enough that I'd gain almost nothing from it's 'advantages', and lose a lot of the advantages of C++. More likely, I'd use Ocaml if at all possible :-) > To date, OCaml has emphasised interoperability (e.g. with C), which is one > of the reasons that its been successful. Yes, I agree. And this is one of the major components of the design of C++: it is simultaneously a strength and a serious weakness. My Felix language generates C++, but provides a saner syntax/semantics (at least, that is the idea); it provides much better interoperability than Ocaml. Some things are lost of course! But Java is not compatible with C or C++, so there was no need to make a language with so many of the faults it has. IMHO. :-) Instead, the designers should have looked at the kinds of languages researchers were working with (like ML), and provided as version of them with a 'simplified' syntax. At least that's what I would have done, (and indeed _is_ what I'm doing with Felix :-) -- 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