[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2004-05-10 (19:10) |
From: | John Goerzen <jgoerzen@c...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] OCaml to C |
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