Re: When functional languages can be accepted by industry?

From: John Max Skaller (skaller@maxtal.com.au)
Date: Wed Apr 19 2000 - 17:57:12 MET DST

  • Next message: Xavier Leroy: "Re: C++ & Caml: name clash"

    Sven LUTHER wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 03:49:23AM +1000, John Max Skaller wrote:
    > > No doubt the compiler I'm writing in Ocaml will be fast enough.
    > > But there is no way CAML will compete with the C++ code the compiler
    > > generates.
    > > [At least not the way the CAML bytecode interpreter is written]
    >
    > Bytecode, ...
    >
    > what about the native code compiler ?

            Too hard I guess. The bytecode compiler can probably
    be modified to be stackless, and thus support a huge number
    of concurrent threads via continuations. It is not so easy to
    generate native code with these properties.

    > If you are comparing Ocaml to C++, at least use similar stuff. Or else you
    > should compare to bytecode java, or interpreted C++ (if such a thing exists).

            I am. I am generating C++ code which could well be the
    same performance as a bytecode interpreter, if it didn't use the
    'C' stack, since that is the reason I'm generating C++ code
    rather than using the bytecode interpreter. :-) 

    -- 
John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au
10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850
checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net
download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 19 2000 - 21:00:53 MET DST