Jon Harrop wrote:
> C++ has those features and they are blamed for slow compilation. However, 
> separate compilation is not the issue so much as dynamic loading.
> 
Yes, dynamic loading doesn't mix with whole-program analysis.  Although
I wonder if it's possible to have our cake and eat it too, with a fast
bytecode compiler and a slower native code compiler that does great
specialization.

> I think 
> that an OCaml-like language that addresses OCaml's performance (including 
> parallelism) and FFI issues would be much more widely useful and is an 
> entirely achievable goal.
> 
I'm not as committed to abandoning OCaml as you seem, and have hope for
incremental improvement of OCaml's weaknesses, although I realize we'll
have to break a number of things to get to where we both (and likely
many others) want to be.


E