Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
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: -- (:)
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 [mailto:mvanier@cs.caltech.edu] 
Sent: 21 July 2002 00:27
To: bemann@execpc.com
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml for Mono/.NET?


> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 00:25:49 -0400
> From: Travis Bemann <bemann@execpc.com>
> 
> 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
compiler
> > that can compile to .NET IL would greatly increase ocaml's
visibility, not
> > to mention solving some of the library and packaging issues that
keep
> > coming up with ocaml.  I know about the F# project, but that
implementati=
> on
> > appears to be only for a subset of ocaml, and is controlled by
Microsoft.
> > I'd be happier with something from the core ocaml team.  Of course,
MY
> > motivation is that I'd like to be able to write nifty graphical apps
in
> > 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?

Mike
-------------------
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
-------------------
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