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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,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 mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C507BBAF for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 21:58:24 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsgBACefmUjRVYTylGdsb2JhbACQfj4BAQEBCQMKBxEDliyFfA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.31,316,1215381600"; d="scan'208";a="15865970" Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.242]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2008 21:58:24 +0200 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b2so12532ana.102 for ; Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:58:23 -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:sender :to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:x-google-sender-auth; bh=pnGjX/RgUbSGUmhDaBUEUaxn3L4T6mAvhfCM42SA1k0=; b=rLI5xaNR5+PMRIEl8KJS2imiHFHLe1+XYf0miGErymqpu6IGN2gtdxLc9nmulU2VGl iIwcY1khcSLAEwo4wSwrjyfg+5J+3x3Bv6KX767ut0JMVRXvPSSPHSs84gGYGRB1I2ci iRTOd18ZU78PDmp31M9t3c0j4BtMW3BFKSE2w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:x-google-sender-auth; b=SnecO61+lXpkcYcPq/G/B+tcw9t0KsshKz+O7cdI4agu3yKQsBSLn49qvts2O2i9GZ msEqM9tTMO4c5IpQhtKlvoIstF/VWvRHGZ/opEVSCA+l2OA+0cUKZrbCClKsTqAnTTgV XGtoIgHQ3F2GBjfMKwztCVar4KuRdHe1dZOZ8= Received: by 10.100.139.20 with SMTP id m20mr980504and.17.1218052702977; Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.173.1 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <74a4f4670808061258q30513bbdl446240feab3fdc36@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:58:22 -0400 From: "Ben Aurel" Sender: ben.jakbot@gmail.com To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: native vs bytecode MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Google-Sender-Auth: 42540b11b69d96d3 X-Spam: no; 0.00; bytecode:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 bytecode:01 binaries:01 stack:01 dynamically:01 dynamically:01 native:03 native:03 python:03 languages:03 dynamic:03 confused:04 load:08 hi As I try to acquire more knowledge about Ocaml I made a bit of an unpleseant discovery today. I always was fascinated by the execution performance of Ocaml. But now I've learned, that this is only true for native binaries and I'm a little confused now: - is it possible to dynamically load native libraries into a native program? - is it possible to dynamically load bytecode libraries into a native program? - is it possible to dynamically load native libraries into a bytecode program? - is it possible to dynamically load bytecode libraries into a bytecode program? - Are there any performance test that shows how bytecode programs stack up agains dynamic languages like ruby, perl and python? thanks ben