Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
about OcamIL
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Jon Harrop <jonathandeanharrop@g...>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] about OcamIL
Ben Kuin wrote:
> > A little off topic, but how is Mono/Unix these days?
> >> Still leaks memory,
> you refer to your examinations?
> (http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/mono-22-still-leaks-
> memory.html?showComment=1233522107493#c7872630239059031867)
> where you say yes and the mono devs are say no to memory leaking?

Yes.

> >> has broken TCO
> Again, I think other people do not have the same opion on this (
> http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/mono-does-not-support-tail-
> calls.html)

Yes. They are wrong.

> I've introduced the post with some license related concerns, maybe I
> should take a step back and think about what I want:
> 
> 1. - programming in a ML like language ( especially the caml family
> since I really like those lightweigt type definitions and the pattern
> matching that can be applied on those)
> 
> 2. - high performance runtime, preferably a jit based vm, no problems
> with TCO
> 
> 3. - a true open source license (approved by Open Source Initiative or
> by Free Software Foundation)
> 
> I think this 3 point are REASONABLE but the combination of those 3
> items is INEXISTENT.

I'm afraid the situation is far worse. Even if you relax your conditions
from "ML-like" to any functional language and even allow broken TCO, there
are not only no language implementations satisfying those weaker conditions
but nobody is even trying to create such a language implementation.

> Ocaml on HLVM: I would appreciate if Jon could make a clear statement
> if this is something serious or just a little toy.

HLVM is not yet ready for serious use and it may well never compile OCaml
but at least it is now compiling code like this:

http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/variant-types-and-pattern-matchin
g-in.html

> A last idea: What do you think about libjit? They claim that a jvm/clr
> like runtime could be built in weeks. Wouldn't it be nice to have a
> fast vm for Ocaml (ocamljit) ? Does someone has experience with this,
> I think writing a fast vm is hard, but a fast vm for a functional
> language is nearly impossible? Maybe OcamIL could then be used as a
> model for a jit backend, since its MSIL output already runs on libjit
> (DotGnu, alias pnet)

I think LLVM is a much better choice than libjit. Once you've got that kind
of solid foundation to build upon and a decent language like OCaml to write
in, you can write a decent FPL implementation in a few man-months. The
problem is finding the time...

Cheers,
Jon.