From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA00225; Mon, 24 May 2004 19:38:39 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA00909 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 19:38:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail2.speakeasy.net (mail2.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.202]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4OHcbEV012859 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 19:38:37 +0200 Received: (qmail 27518 invoked from network); 24 May 2004 17:38:34 -0000 Received: from shell1.speakeasy.net ([69.17.110.70]) (envelope-sender ) by mail2.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 24 May 2004 17:38:34 -0000 Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:38:34 -0700 (PDT) From: brogoff To: Ocaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Large projects in OCaml In-Reply-To: <40B2276F.40902@baretta.com> Message-ID: References: <200405211228.34673.jdh30@cam.ac.uk> <20040524.120703.46614549.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <1085376050.6065.230.camel@pelican.wigram> <20040524.211426.68536843.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <1085406873.6065.272.camel@pelican.wigram> <20040524162002.A19967@pauillac.inria.fr> <40B2276F.40902@baretta.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 40B2331D.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; brogoff:01 brogoff:01 caml-list:01 baretta:01 model:01 model:01 reconcile:01 gcaml:01 dylan:01 dylan:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 caml:01 speakeasy:01 alex:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Mon, 24 May 2004, Alex Baretta wrote: > Xavier Leroy wrote: > > A good component model for OCaml (and other languages): that would be > > interesting. Shared libraries for the sake of shared libraries: that > > isn't interesting in the least. > > > > - Xavier Leroy > > > This is a very interesting remark. Indeed, static type safety seems > rather incompatbile with a component model, yet, I'm sure someone is > doing research on the subject. Can anyone point me to the relevant material? I think you're right that it seems difficult to reconcile static type safety and a component model (and many other things!) but what may make sense is to intergrate some bit of dynamic typing into Caml. That is one of the many reasons that some of us are hoping that GCaml or something like it finds its way into OCaml. Both Clean and Mercury have some dynamic typing, and from the other side you could view Dylan as having some explicit static typing on a dynamic language, though I'm pretty sure that Dylan (and Lisp) people think about static types as a means to get better performance only. You may be interested in browsing the Clean pages for material on dynamics. -- Brian ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners