From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <david.mentre@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B90A37EE51
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Fri, 24 May 2013 17:19:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  david.mentre@gmail.com) identity=pra;
  client-ip=209.85.215.43;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="david.mentre@gmail.com";
  x-sender="david.mentre@gmail.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of
  david.mentre@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.43 as permitted
  sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.215.43;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="david.mentre@gmail.com";
  x-sender="david.mentre@gmail.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@mail-la0-f43.google.com) identity=helo;
  client-ip=209.85.215.43;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="david.mentre@gmail.com";
  x-sender="postmaster@mail-la0-f43.google.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhICAH6En1HRVdcrk2dsb2JhbABZhiwBwC0IFg4BAQEBBwsLCRQEJIIkAQVAATgBAwwBBQULOx8CARIBBQEcBhOHewMPnGOPPIUMJw2IYAEFDIw6hjIDjiWHMIFmjB2DPhYpgV2CWjo
X-IPAS-Result: AhICAH6En1HRVdcrk2dsb2JhbABZhiwBwC0IFg4BAQEBBwsLCRQEJIIkAQVAATgBAwwBBQULOx8CARIBBQEcBhOHewMPnGOPPIUMJw2IYAEFDIw6hjIDjiWHMIFmjB2DPhYpgV2CWjo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,736,1363129200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="15601962"
Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com ([209.85.215.43])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 24 May 2013 17:19:25 +0200
Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id ez20so4612474lab.30
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Fri, 24 May 2013 08:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=d4/sEuIvTK00Hwi3ldlnw87DFYH9EB314DFUpE+HBI0=;
        b=qRiVPL/Q/XYHfZ/go+DkiI3xfxDj08rgSqYcSQwnl8r6MtGJICkiro3OJB3Djp28tP
         hb//MVv5UcXbndMTxKJ5XhDMem14YMo17TH2sw/IkYlqf8gqAmtzBL8+JVzPHPnlQ9Ay
         AeUlFkalIFw+5jrohNohiDYVNpBz8L9aPCVhw/t9uK/dgdje41JiAOZtYdf2x6LY8tvI
         majt/mUIhi7TVndODFj0PIlwpQZ2M1hrtsLgJqeGuT/Yn1aUcaHTrf6R8O0dY0fysgNJ
         38QKO0pv+V3/FVRZsi5E9NpGRir0NTRaKmj/s9buhM/B7A/7edBik7gRBcVqZR+1HLHY
         u6hw==
X-Received: by 10.112.167.229 with SMTP id zr5mr9111641lbb.7.1369408764154;
 Fri, 24 May 2013 08:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: david.mentre@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.73.208 with HTTP; Fri, 24 May 2013 08:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFzMiE19Nk1bU_5Z_CdRNhBiV3W67Ohxjba2eGnMsLXS1uuhcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC3Lx=aj0HxPYvQKpt2yFzcQMXZOc2NKnB56DezQheMHjUPdag@mail.gmail.com>
 <519F1CF6.7050007@riken.jp> <20130524143500.GE2007@siouxsie> <CAFzMiE19Nk1bU_5Z_CdRNhBiV3W67Ohxjba2eGnMsLXS1uuhcA@mail.gmail.com>
From: David MENTRE <dmentre@linux-france.org>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:18:53 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: xU8smVBqYNu0wtQhBMMm1ZYbHTc
Message-ID: <CAC3Lx=a9zCzBvD0eHRg8SS8D49+dH4hweBsfNwuOKBWf_ETYMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Esther Baruk <esther.baruk@gmail.com>
Cc: oliver <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>, 
	"caml-list@inria.fr users" <caml-list@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] French study on security and functional languages

Hello,

2013/5/24 Esther Baruk <esther.baruk@gmail.com>:
> These documents do not even mention the -ppx option and thus the project was
> done without comparing the two approaches...

I just glimpsed through the documents but some of them seem quite old
(2011) and they are referencing OCaml 3.12.0.

Regarding the recommendations, they are always debatable. Hopefully
they have a rationale that permit to understand why the document
author proposed such a recommendation.

Nonetheless I find interesting and refreshing[1] the fact that ANSSI
is at least seriously considering OCaml for writing security related
programs.

Regards,
david

[1] Pun intended regarding the current French weather.