> On Thu, 04 Jan 2001, John Max Skaller wrote:
> > 	Actually, I think ocamlopt is _more_ portable.
> > There's no mucking around with custom run-times, etc.
> 
> Well, it would be really funny to see OCaml compete against Java in
> the browser market (a rather unrealistic dream, I fear). Wasn't there a
> basic WWW-browser written in OCaml? I am not sure, but I think it also
> supported OCaml-byte code.

MMM, the Ocaml-based web browser, still exists, see
http://caml.inria.fr/archives/200005/msg00082.html.  However, last I knew,
the Ocaml bytecode lacks the security guarantees of Java bytecode.  Dynamic
linking will not violate stated interface constraints, but these can be
spoofed, I believe.  

Mike

-- 
Michael Hicks
Ph.D. Candidate, the University of Pennsylvania
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~mwh            mailto://mwh@dsl.cis.upenn.edu
*There was a man who entered a local paper's pun contest; He sent in ten
*different puns, in the hope that at least one of the puns would win.  
*Unfortunately, no pun in ten did.