On Mon, 24 May 2004, Alex Baretta wrote:
> Xavier Leroy wrote:
> > A good component model for OCaml (and other languages): that would be
> > interesting.  Shared libraries for the sake of shared libraries: that
> > isn't interesting in the least.
> >
> > - Xavier Leroy
>
>
> This is a very interesting remark. Indeed, static type safety seems
> rather incompatbile with a component model, yet, I'm sure someone is
> doing research on the subject. Can anyone point me to the relevant material?

I think you're right that it seems difficult to reconcile static type safety and
a component model (and many other things!) but what may make sense is to
intergrate some bit of dynamic typing into Caml. That is one of the many reasons
that some of us are hoping that GCaml or something like it finds its way into
OCaml.

Both Clean and Mercury have some dynamic typing, and from the other side you
could view Dylan as having some explicit static typing on a dynamic language,
though I'm pretty sure that Dylan (and Lisp) people think about static types
as a means to get better performance only. You may be interested in browsing the
Clean pages for material on dynamics.

-- Brian

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