From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA00812; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 19:04:07 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 TAA00739 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 19:04:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from night.its.uiowa.edu (night.its.uiowa.edu [128.255.56.106]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g59H45H10671 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 19:04:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from uiowa.edu (host38-92.uihc.uiowa.edu [129.255.38.92]) by night.its.uiowa.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/ns-mx-1.14) with ESMTP id g59H43l29122 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 12:04:03 -0500 Message-ID: <3D038A83.904@uiowa.edu> Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 12:04:03 -0500 From: Brian Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0rc3) Gecko/20020523 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: OCaml Mailing list Subject: O'Caml, JVM, and .NET (was Re: [Caml-list] F#) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk I have looked over the archives and I have seen there has been a fair amount of discussion on compiling O'Caml to JVM bytecode or the .NET intermediate language. The primary advantage cited seems to be reuse of .NET and J2SE/J2EE libraries. People have said that compiling O'Caml to JVM/.NET is difficult because of mismatches in the .NET/JVM object model and the O'Caml object model. But, would it be easier to reuse Java libraries by: * extending the O'Caml runtime to be able to interpret JVM bytecodes (i.e. be able to dynamically link to *.class and *.jar files), or * cross-compiling JVM bytecode into O'Caml bytecode, or * compiling Java source code into O'Caml bytecode Similar questions apply for .NET, of course. I would like to do more programming in O'Caml but it is sometimes difficult to choose O'Caml over Java when there are _so_ many libraries available for Java, with more added seemingly every day. Thanks, Brian Don Syme wrote: > I chose to implement a core Caml compiler for .NET partly to test out > generics, but also because I want to be able to program against .NET > libraries using the language I love to program in, and reuse the > libraries and techniques I've developed. I guess it's possible I'll > get a bit of flak from the Caml community about F#. ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners