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 OAA27072 for caml-red; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:26:10 +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 TAA20715 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 19:38:04 +0100 (MET) Received: from dalilab.com ([63.203.128.164]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f03Ic2T08910 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 19:38:03 +0100 (MET) Received: from [63.198.73.142] (HELO kind.kindsoftware.com) by dalilab.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4b7) with ESMTP id 385258; Wed, 03 Jan 2001 10:38:01 -0800 Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 10:38:00 -0800 From: "Joseph R. Kiniry" Reply-To: "Joseph R. Kiniry" To: OCAML cc: Markus Mottl , Mattias Waldau Subject: Re: JIT-compilation for OCaml? Message-ID: <64320000.978547080@kind.kindsoftware.com> In-Reply-To: <20010103191903.B29666@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.6b2 (Linux/x86) Organization: Department of Computer Science, Caltech X-Image-Url: http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~kiniry/graphics/jrk-8.99.jpg X-Url: http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~kiniry/ X-Face: 9X:!41!x9hOT+cJU.gb=hXxEm6v)ZczE-':_8mlM-7^G!j%2$QC00w?G "x_1ZnY3[!+gGQD.6%=0EMBt[m|kdKsr*m=3J&r(#is5]J>&eVWNy-h^DrtO_5jES gK6NFKoj%c=+E?*%+\S$Rn7Y|mT(a~1Y{[$MZR[8~(bK[P4]RM2E<"5:n|2Gm!V

7aWw 9+K|b{`Ou,uYaNn(`QDDR wrote: > On Wed, 03 Jan 2001, Joseph R. Kiniry wrote: >> > No, I don't use it at all, but I believe you that it must be very >> > painful ;) >> >> Not to go offtopic, but I'd rather see list members educated rather than >> FUD'ded. If ML is a Prius we still have to respect the Taurus that is >> Java. > > There was a smiley after my criticism... - anyway, though I'd never want > to switch to Java when I can use OCaml, it isn't this bad compared to > other mainstream languages. At least some major insanities have been > removed. Sorry, I'm seriously emoticon disabled. I agree with your sentiment. Some of the final insantities are being addressed by pretty bright people, (thread semantics, lack of assertions, parameterization), so let's hope they get it right. >> In fact, one of my companies chose Java over five competitor languages >> (Objective-C, C++, Eiffel, CLOS, and oTcl) in a head-to-head test. Note >> that this company is a group of uber-geeks with a language geek at the >> helm (me), so we were not working in a vacuum. > > Why didn't you compare to OCaml or other FPLs (e.g. Haskell, Clean, etc.)? > Business reasons? Entirely. I would have been happy to work in OCaml, but trying to convince investors (who are reluctant enough to go with something like Objective-C or CLOS) that ML is a viable option is a hard-sell. Couple that with the whole training, hiring, maintenence, and Open Source issues and you hit a dead end immediately. >> Certainly the breadth and growth of Java's libraries is a marvel, but I >> *certainly* wouldn't say that they are a uniform example of good design. >> It amazes me that a package can go through so much semi-public design >> review and still have serious design flaws. Until one uses a library on >> large projects with many people for a some reasonable period of time, >> claims of excellence, esp from the library vendor, are premature. > > It would be interesting to know what (except for GUI-stuff) people are > missing in OCaml or other FPLs. I just haven't used Java often enough > to know details about its libraries. > > - Markus Mottl While on the other hand I can't claim expertise in OCaml -- hundreds of lines of code do not an expert make!. Perhaps someone else on the list has written OCaml/ML and Java for > 10,000 LOC? I hope to become an OCaml expert this year, partly because I'm doing a port to the new Amiga VP/Taos architecture and partly because it is next on "the list". Best, Joe -- Joseph R. Kiniry http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~kiniry/ California Institute of Technology ID 78860581 ICQ 4344804