From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.8 required=5.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4D7BC37 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:07:16 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqMCAPFUv0rRVd3Cjmdsb2JhbACRTYh3PwEBAQEJCwgJEQWnUYE0jWsBAwIFhBkF X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,461,1249250400"; d="scan'208";a="35099251" Received: from mail-qy0-f194.google.com ([209.85.221.194]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2009 21:07:15 +0200 Received: by qyk32 with SMTP id 32so3016967qyk.1 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GUe5lffOYq9sn2XOo69v0j1vvYgZaFE/DM2myVgc8OQ=; b=BHojehmLjWcbPP2Jz++mg1BVsyIqiAscjT4Wi58XMhm5tFmhpkDxwWcHTlNnSP3lPu 5oJzfW3GgsLmlK07+LXY4qPELx7YRIGVXwl7Kg362l4vyeYx8yFASnpJx9+ePau3PcHm x3VNlwupIW2tv4amk/KhhjITNGS72joSVsW2U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=JzhDXGN3R5dQTav1NrlbppMESiiTEDEonyVmglH/jTPtSaWFmxrYEjRkmjLvwiuQhD WQ4h4PRWBWYofe07TXKQ3k173UsYQ+7MFuGM1cQH7rDjYLojrH+AuKImF3iEpL0c6tnY ZgwnM55QzPL7i2UQhJCglRflrW1kGQ0bvOoYY= Received: by 10.224.8.72 with SMTP id g8mr1983941qag.291.1254078434854; Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.98? ([72.44.99.175]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5sm6107638qwg.13.2009.09.27.12.07.12 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4ABFB7DE.2050108@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:07:10 -0400 From: Edgar Friendly User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Harrop Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] JIT & HLVM, LLVM References: <4E6F3027-5745-462D-AF10-30C868285D28@refined-audiometrics.com> <4ABFA264.7060903@gmail.com> <200909271951.27762.jon@ffconsultancy.com> In-Reply-To: <200909271951.27762.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; compilation:01 compilation:01 bytecode:01 compiler:01 compiler:01 ocaml-like:01 ocaml's:01 parallelism:01 ffi:01 ocaml:01 ocaml's:01 edgar:98 incremental:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 Jon Harrop wrote: > C++ has those features and they are blamed for slow compilation. However, > separate compilation is not the issue so much as dynamic loading. > Yes, dynamic loading doesn't mix with whole-program analysis. Although I wonder if it's possible to have our cake and eat it too, with a fast bytecode compiler and a slower native code compiler that does great specialization. > I think > that an OCaml-like language that addresses OCaml's performance (including > parallelism) and FFI issues would be much more widely useful and is an > entirely achievable goal. > I'm not as committed to abandoning OCaml as you seem, and have hope for incremental improvement of OCaml's weaknesses, although I realize we'll have to break a number of things to get to where we both (and likely many others) want to be. E