On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 11:50:00AM +0300, Jere Sanisalo wrote:
> On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 04:37:16PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> >However, if you are going to do that, why not just compile the code to
> >native code with ocamlopt and not worry about the C piece?
> 
> Because ocaml compilers/runtimes do not exist for every platform (say,
> consoles). And because compiling to C code could allow you to write
> independent libraries for others to use. It would be nice to release
> libraries that do a ton of stuff, usable for C/C++ coders, that were written
> easily with ocaml. And also some managers seem to trust projects that are
> "pure C/C++" much more than projects that use a variable amount of
> languages.

IMHO, a better approach than generating C output of questionable
usefulness would be to extend ocamlopt to:

1. Support those platforms it doesn't yet;
2. Support output to .o/.a/.so/.dll files to directly generate
   C-style shared libraries.

I still don't see the utility of the massive undertaking that would be
necessary to actually generate full C code from OCaml.  I doubt that
anyone would be able to maintain that C code directly in any meaningful
way, which pretty much negates any manager-related benefit.

-- John

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