Browse thread
about OcamIL
-
ben kuin
- Alain Frisch
-
Eray Ozkural
- Ed Keith
- ben kuin
[
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: | 2010-05-15 (09:45) |
From: | ben kuin <benkuin@g...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] about OcamIL |
hi erik, I highly appreciate your blog, so it hurts me a little but - I disagree: > The only evidence to support this is the widespead usage of > Java and C#, but I think that is a language choice rather than > a conscious decision to use a language that runs on a VM. > > People chose Java and C# because they are preferable to > fundamentally unsafe langauges like C and C++. English is not my first language, maybe I misunderstand, but what you're are saying here sound like a complete contradiction to me: Like you say C and C++ are considered as 'unsafe' languages. But thats because they offer features, that are not available when programming for a vm. This has nothing to do with languages, it's a conscious platform decision. >> What if ocamlopt would be dropped for a faster ocaml vm? > > Why? Even if the Ocaml was able to target a faster VM, there > are still many people who would chose to generate native > binaries. I'd call that a questionable decision. As far as I know, using native binaries means to open a whole range of potentially uncorrectionable problems with abi incomptabilities between libraries or with changes of the underlying os. As far as I know when you go native you always have to take abi incompatibility and therefore recompilation into account. For business apps, that's a showstopper. > Erik (who uses Ocaml compiled to native binaries for mission > critical code) Would you mind to share some infos about your experiences, maybe on your blog?