From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pBAAa9E4011873 for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:36:09 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvwAADM1405KfVI0imdsb2JhbABDqnQIIgEBAQoJDQcSBiGCCwIsARseAxIJAQZdAREBBQEiHBmHbpYEglwKi2SCa4Q/PYhxAgUMi2EElHGNcT2Deg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,331,1320620400"; d="scan'208";a="134820206" Received: from mail-ww0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 10 Dec 2011 11:36:03 +0100 Received: by wgbdr12 with SMTP id dr12so8876342wgb.9 for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 02:36:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=5WRpfvxZ+vAyAOCqGC5aRY+TXXxOukMDc7zvTzr2AQY=; b=jvB/CWDuP6GNeBOffMOfRbACXgRmuG+L/8ZSdtplgEGgSw1gIds9Lywoa8moiCJ2eo 2s+IaRCbjOQa7mPuG0Q78WKEJW0xpH/CjAjKYWmrPCK3930IL5poBN9EtJygdNh/CBvk iLjl/zfTu02xUEGW8CEbh2ON48MUsZ2iUV2ps= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.46.148 with SMTP id r20mr1108719web.114.1323513363214; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 02:36:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.6.197 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 02:36:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:36:03 +0100 Message-ID: From: Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons To: caml-list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364c7f3fdeb41b04b3ba7792 Subject: [Caml-list] Why isn't there a common platform for functional language interaction ? --0016364c7f3fdeb41b04b3ba7792 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Caml-list, Given that other people are raising trolls, here is mine... I have to admit I appreciate F# transparent interaction with C# libraries which allows me to use large amounts of code that I would have had to poorly rewrite otherwise (GUI, database, web stuff, etc). Same happens with SML, Caml, Haskell and F#, some pieces of code are just way better in one language than in the others, and you end partially porting these libraries to Caml which is a waste of time and you don't benefit from the updates of the original code and nobody but you can maintain your quick-and-dirty port. Why isn't there a core functional languages to which everyone could compile, on which the compiler research could be done (certification, optimisation, garbage collection) and that would allow full interaction of the different dialects at run-time ? At some point I thought that C-- (http://www.cminusminus.org/index.html) and that type of work would converge to that but it never happened. Diego Olivier --0016364c7f3fdeb41b04b3ba7792 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =A0=A0=A0 Caml-list,

Given that other people are raising trolls, her= e is mine...

I have to admit I appreciate F# transparent interaction= with C# libraries which allows me to use large amounts of code that I woul= d have had to poorly rewrite otherwise (GUI, database, web stuff, etc). Sam= e happens with SML, Caml, Haskell and F#, some pieces of code are just way = better in one language than in the others, and you end partially porting th= ese libraries to Caml which is a waste of time and you don't benefit fr= om the updates of the original code and nobody but you can maintain your qu= ick-and-dirty port.

Why isn't there a core functional languages to which everyone could= compile, on which the compiler research could be done (certification, opti= misation, garbage collection) and that would allow full interaction of the = different dialects at run-time ?

At some point I thought that C-- (http://www.cminusminus.org/index.html) and that type of wo= rk would converge to that but it never happened.

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0 Diego Olivier
--0016364c7f3fdeb41b04b3ba7792--