From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 CA76ABC57 for ; Fri, 14 May 2010 22:08:13 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AncDAINK7UtKfVI0gGdsb2JhbACdfwgVAQEUJCKtboIAhHsuiE0BAQMFhQsE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,232,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="59372286" Received: from mail-ww0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 14 May 2010 22:08:13 +0200 Received: by wwb24 with SMTP id 24so1915076wwb.39 for ; Fri, 14 May 2010 13:08:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ZBEYxZvWSX+jLJ4gIjHIP0rXplAd0ZIq/YpllglLBGo=; b=tk8ui90AOyFpXoMmOXIC659xhntu7IUkRLk2VP+hEodm5lN0YCg+d6yU8LayUqY2zu cfT1kPYcFFLstER4qkSrQXFYX/5/zJiKHKMYcOf1H5BlRyM04XQTID4vzgeL1HEd/f+U vWXyI9aUSFkcBLfidDKKuS0kyuFNBK3bZLj08= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=YvPHqmNIpSicCJlX4KZomjJ9q6BMkxvdwgJnGPMNGXVSg/SVbyECAraVk6LITNV7Jg gkYKLZprIB7kQrAbBXKAuRH9TGJoo+k2wf05pnGXQ7aBrX2ncCmWojTWYUYRXof1Tbuf LJDNH0ZDDlaTDvWG13/h+vZzuhd2PivN0Sjeg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.88.73 with SMTP id z51mr1221428wee.27.1273867692974; Fri, 14 May 2010 13:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.45.69 with HTTP; Fri, 14 May 2010 13:08:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0E1811BF-59F6-4531-8A65-67B60A4F345D@gmail.com> References: <201005061233.07551.peng.zang@gmail.com> <07b101caf08b$3e5022c0$baf06840$@com> <088201caf1ce$b5060cb0$1f122610$@com> <20100512151137.26894ywcpv71ixvk@imp.ovh.net> <012601caf351$e9a362e0$bcea28a0$@com> <87fx1uh5r5.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <0E1811BF-59F6-4531-8A65-67B60A4F345D@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 22:08:12 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Caml-list] about OcamIL From: ben kuin To: Vincent Aravantinos , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 compiler:01 bytecode:01 runtimes:01 versioning:01 ocaml:01 bindings:01 bytecode:01 trivial:01 landing:98 sourceforge:01 reflection:01 compile:01 caml-list:01 precisely:01 > Isn't this precisely the aim of Jon's hlvm > (www.ffconsultancy.com/ocaml/hlvm/)? that's an interesting question, Here are a few thoughts: technical: - in .NET everything is easy (from the surface): you have your source file (hello.cs) you take your compiler (cs.exe) and compile it to a msil bytecode file (hello.dll). You can run reflection tools to hello.dll or link it to a exe or generate back to source. This bytecodefile is your friend. You can run it on a bunch of runtimes like .net clr, or on mono, or rotor, or dotgnu. You can register libraries in a container to prevent versioning problems with future releases. I couldn't figure out those equivalents int hlvm or llvm. - with HLVM things are complex (for me): What is the role of the big underlying llvm infrastructure. Why do even need hlvm if we have llvm plus ocaml bindings. Does hlvm has its own bytecode? If yes where is it specified? Is hlvm a ocaml library or is it a free standing vm? etc. Maybe for you these a trivial questions, but I still dont get it, while with .net I never had problem to get the idea. licensing: Hlvm is driven by a company and its landing page is on a companies website and one of its protagonists is smart *and* business savvy. What if hlvm would really take off, could they set it free and move the homepage to sourceforge ? Right now it's bsd licensed, maybe tomorow it's dual licenced like Qi? Or maybe the license some (future) killer features under a closed license? This is just guessing - I don't want to spread fud. But as a former .net developer I followed mono from the beginning and I'm very disappointed that mono is still not considered as a friendly linux citicen. All because of some half-clear license issues. But sure hlvm is impressive and could be the solution.