> 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