English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
Scilab: Why not written in OCaml?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2009-09-19 (21:02)
From: Oliver Bandel <oliver@f...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Scilab: Why not written in OCaml?

Zitat von "Philippe Wang" <philippe.wang.lists@gmail.com>:

> Why not use Bigloo? It's a efficient scheme compiler, also developed  
> at INRIA.
> http://www-sop.inria.fr/mimosa/fp/Bigloo/

I looked at bigloo before I came to OCaml.

I decided against it.
Not only because of schem's ((((())))()(()()))))))-terror ;-)
but also (main reason) because of this:

"Bigloo produces C files. C code uses the C stack,
  so some programs can?t be properly tail recursive.
  Nevertheless all simple tail recursions are compiled
  without stack consumption."

This was not really inspiring confidence.
Even if I did not really know much about that topic tailrec-topic,
it seemed to be a basic feature, and other scheme implementations did  
not have such a limitation...
...then I had contact to Haskell and Ocaml and decided OCaml to be my  

I never looked at bigloo again, but that quote above is from the  
bigloo-documentation that I just now downloaded to assure the point  
has not changed during the last years.

> Just kidding,

oh,  I saw this too late;-)