From: skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>

> > If Caml could make shared libraries, perhaps those sorts of 
> > libraries (very large libraries, meant to be used by many small 
> > programs) would have a better chance of being written in Caml.
> 
> Yes. There is a tension between dynamically loading which is
> possible with bytecode, and generation of dynamically loadable
> native code.
> 
> The former is interesting but not industrially satisfying
> because it doesn't allow dynamic loading of interfaces
> to C, which must be native code.

But, this is plain wrong: since 3.04 you can dynamically load C stubs
through dynamically loading a bytecode library.
I think this is a huge improvement.
And if you're going to use .NET, shouldn't you be happy with bytecode :-)

The main reason I see for wanting dynamic loading of native code is
speed, and symmetry with bytecode. These are valid reasons.
But for one I'm perfectly happy with bytecode.

Jacques Garrigue

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