On Mar 21, 2004, at 7:36 PM, Oleg Trott wrote:

> If I were writing a dynamically-typed language implementation in 
> O'Caml, I'd _compile_ it _to_ O'Caml (as opposed to interpreting the 
> language) In fact, except for EVAL and CALL/CC, it's probably very 
> trivial to write a Scheme-to-OCaml compiler, and get the performance 
> on par with decent native-code Scheme compilers.

How would you handle interactive sessions?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure call/cc is far easier than getting good 
performance, all you need to do is use CPS, which is simple and 
efficient in OCaml.  If you want the code to run fast, you need to do 
something to make function calls more direct (no lists or arrays of 
arguments)...

The native-code Scheme compilers I've tried aren't too impressive, they 
can produce fast code but not safely and/or not with the full language 
semantics, one of the things restricting them is using C as an 
intermediate language (OCaml as an intermediate language would suffer 
from most of the same problems).  Decent Common Lisp systems work far 
better, producing native code directly, even in interactive sessions.

-------------------
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