From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pBACNwG2014760 for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:23:58 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtcCAJlO406K54gDgWdsb2JhbABDFoRxpXUiAQEWJiWBcgEBBSNVARALGgIFFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGDQEHAgWIAQajd5EsgTSJI4EWBJRxhUuMXQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,331,1320620400"; d="scan'208";a="134828291" Received: from rouge.crans.org ([138.231.136.3]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 10 Dec 2011 13:23:53 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost.crans.org [127.0.0.1]) by rouge.crans.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B864C8380; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:23:51 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crans.org Received: from rouge.crans.org ([10.231.136.3]) by localhost (rouge.crans.org [10.231.136.3]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id IB8eNhVwVvEA; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:23:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.39.1] (fbx.up7.fr [81.56.96.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rouge.crans.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D90184B3; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:23:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4EE34F56.8010709@glondu.net> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:23:50 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?U3TDqXBoYW5lIEdsb25kdQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111114 Icedove/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons CC: caml-list References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 OpenPGP: id=49881AD3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id pBACNwG2014760 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why isn't there a common platform for functional language interaction ? Le 10/12/2011 11:36, Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons a écrit : > At some point I thought that C-- (http://www.cminusminus.org/index.html) > and that type of work would converge to that but it never happened. Interesting... but it doesn't seem to have evolved since 2007. LLVM and Parrot advertised the same goals, and are uncontroversial technologies in my opinion. I think that to achieve better interoperability and "hype", one of those would be a better fit than the current native and bytecode compilers. I know, either is probably not the best fit w.r.t. performances (actually, I've got some concern about Parrot's design, but that's not the point), but, come on... do people really chose to write in OCaml because of performances? Much more people write in Perl, Python, etc. for reasons that could be applied to OCaml (if there were only the toplevel). By the way, as far as OCaml is concerned, there was also the OCamlIL project [1], but it looks dead now (and .NET is not a technology I would call uncontroversial). [1] http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~montela/ocamil/ Cheers, -- Stéphane