Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
RE: [Caml-list] ocaml for Mono/.NET?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2002-07-26 (04:33)
From: Andrew Kennedy <akenn@m...>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] ocaml for Mono/.NET?
Our SML.NET implementation compiles the functors of Standard ML by
expanding them at compile-time.

There *is* a tension between supporting all the features of the source
language and at the same time providing smooth inter-operation with
other .NET languages. Hopefully for functional languages this tension
will lessen when parametric polymorphism is supported by the .NET CLR. 

- Andrew.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Vanier [] 
Sent: 21 July 2002 00:27
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml for Mono/.NET?

> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 00:25:49 -0400
> From: Travis Bemann <>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 12:31:52AM -0700, Michael Vanier wrote:
> >
> > Are there any plans to port ocaml to .NET?  Given that the Mono
> > implementation of .NET is coming along nicely, having an ocaml
> > that can compile to .NET IL would greatly increase ocaml's
visibility, not
> > to mention solving some of the library and packaging issues that
> > coming up with ocaml.  I know about the F# project, but that
> on
> > appears to be only for a subset of ocaml, and is controlled by
> > I'd be happier with something from the core ocaml team.  Of course,
> > motivation is that I'd like to be able to write nifty graphical apps
> > ocaml under Linux.  After all, once you learn ocaml, C# is not
really very
> > tempting ;-)
> The thing is that this subset is FORCED by the inherent design of the
> CLR/.NET bytecode virtual machine, which doesn't support stuff like
> parameterized modules.  Any attempt to port something like OCaml to
> something like CLR/.NET will only result in its bastardization, and
> thus the loss of many of its features/advantages.

That's interesting, considering that standard ML is one of the languages
supposedly targeted by the common language runtime (by which I mean that
the SML team was consulted on what features they would need in the
intermediate language in order to support SML).  Doesn't SML have
parameterized modules?

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list:
To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: