Browse thread
JIT-compilation for OCaml?
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2001-01-06 (22:21) |
From: | Joseph R. Kiniry <kiniry@a...> |
Subject: | Re: JIT-compilation for OCaml? |
Hello Sven, Apologies for the off-topic-ness of this post, but since OCaml will be running on this architecture soon, and since this set of software is fairly innovative, it is likely of interest to the readers of this list. --On Friday, January 05, 2001 13:52:58 +0100 Sven LUTHER <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:06:09AM -0800, Joseph R. Kiniry wrote: >> I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit. I meant that if you are >> developing and Open Source product and you'd like large scale >> involvement, choosing OCaml as a source language isn't in your best >> interest. While it is true that you are likely to get higher quality >> people involved, the source pool is several orders of magnitude smaller >> than that of Java. > > A, yes, but is it not said that ocaml programs are easier to write and > smaller in size, thus easier to maintain ? would this not compensate the > lower number of available developpers ? You'll get no argument for me on these points. The only maintainence issues with OCaml are from a non-language-expert-business-investor-standpoint: the lack of a large corporation to support tools, the small number of existing expert programmers as a hiring pool, and the standard chicken-and-egg argument ("well no one _else_ is using this language, so it _must_ not be a good choice!"). Note that *I* do not subscribe to the above, but I am only one of many investors/participants. In my other company, as in my research work, I'm the boss, so to speak, so we hear a different tune there. > BTW, about the amiga/TAO stuff ? what is your feeling about the virtual > code or whatever they call it ? i had the feeling that it was very i386 > like, but haven't looked at it very long, but it would make it kind of a > heresy to longtime amiga users ? The "new" Amiga <http://www.amiga.com/> is really a set of technologies built on top of a virtual operating system from the Tao Group <http://www.tao-group.com/>. It is a processor agnostic, clean-room OS built from the ground up to be scalable (i.e. run on anything from a wristwatch to a multi-processor server), portable (i.e. runs on over 20 processor architectures), high performance (mostly due to an advanced load-time compiler that does data-flow analysis), and of elegant design (innovative "tools" as a unit of memory management and compilation, asynchronous messaging-based communication throughout, multiprocessor ready from day zero, etc.). I'm really impressed with the Tao codebase. The VP design is the nicest assembly language I have ever used. (I know most Motorola, MIPS, and Intel assembly languages, as a reference). It is object-based(!), has unlimited registers, has a clean and flexible syntax, and (by design) is very efficiently translated to machine code. For the hard-core Amiga user of old (of which I am one, as well as a C=64 and NeXT geek), it is nice to see the name rebirthed with innovative technology, but it is unclear if the team can follow-through with their typically-Amiga grandiose visions (your standard ubiquitous distributed components discovering each other at run-time &c). The Amiga SDK is available for Linux and Windows and comes with extensive documentation, support for several languages (C, C++, Java, Python, Perl, and I've already ported Eiffel), and a whole host of new and innovative technologies. And at $99, it's hard to beat if you are into tinkering with really innovative stuff. Joe -- Joseph R. Kiniry http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~kiniry/ California Institute of Technology ID 78860581 ICQ 4344804