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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5DBBBC57 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 11:45:05 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApcEAL8J7ktKfVK2gGdsb2JhbACSA4t5CBUBARQkIqslggCEaC6ITQEBAwWCaQiCGgQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,235,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="51200601" Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com ([74.125.82.182]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 15 May 2010 11:45:05 +0200 Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so2182608wyg.27 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 02:45:05 -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=my+ptVBByIOP+QZKd+JFXvJRihL/b+v9emcRYSS9pwg=; b=KIJR9SjWM5oZkbczFidvml32xnE//gLd2sWvSkQDr99imZp+Eh45km+b1oZNvdvTnw 4SIm8foAqoK7+Q/XVcOaiQRgOI+ksEmGyeyuksQOtE49XzIpbKz5LguWWKyyybJLRZs9 UL5ITcMBhkZntvNC6Yiko75OGe2P13Om3LKbs= 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=D7XymYdc+ymVrHd2EGSmfYnrhhEWWpwlEaDZwfQwRPx1gkhh1R+YMmL+0pUKLHOVZa gSieHi00AIIjT33lbxrGnnUFEeEvnokC6vtMVPbvNLUZ6JYTwA3d/eh/uIGNGrpPn8jk BSvptYXubcdt3L1HXF6vAdYaslExqlvfZljCo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.182.80 with SMTP id n58mr1502228wem.117.1273916705360; Sat, 15 May 2010 02:45:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.45.69 with HTTP; Sat, 15 May 2010 02:45:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100515104348.7c6b4fd2.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> References: <87fx1uh5r5.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <49505E67-4974-4F0B-A6B7-0E87214E92BB@gmail.com> <20100515104348.7c6b4fd2.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 11:45:05 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Caml-list] about OcamIL From: ben kuin To: caml-list@inria.fr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocamlopt:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 showstopper:01 blog:98 blog:98 binaries:01 binaries:01 caml-list:01 unsafe:01 native:03 native:03 languages:03 languages:03 programming:03 hi erik, I highly appreciate your blog, so it hurts me a little but - I disagree: > The only evidence to support this is the widespead usage of > Java and C#, but I think that is a language choice rather than > a conscious decision to use a language that runs on a VM. > > People chose Java and C# because they are preferable to > fundamentally unsafe langauges like C and C++. English is not my first language, maybe I misunderstand, but what you're are saying here sound like a complete contradiction to me: Like you say C and C++ are considered as 'unsafe' languages. But thats because they offer features, that are not available when programming for a vm. This has nothing to do with languages, it's a conscious platform decision. >> What if ocamlopt would be dropped for a faster ocaml vm? > > Why? Even if the Ocaml was able to target a faster VM, there > are still many people who would chose to generate native > binaries. I'd call that a questionable decision. As far as I know, using native binaries means to open a whole range of potentially uncorrectionable problems with abi incomptabilities between libraries or with changes of the underlying os. As far as I know when you go native you always have to take abi incompatibility and therefore recompilation into account. For business apps, that's a showstopper. > Erik (who uses Ocaml compiled to native binaries for mission > critical code) Would you mind to share some infos about your experiences, maybe on your blog?