]> > Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 00:25:49 -0400 > From: Travis Bemann <bemann@execpc.com> > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 12:31:52AM -0700, Michael Vanier wrote: > > > > Are there any plans to port ocaml to .NET? Given that the Mono > > implementation of .NET is coming along nicely, having an ocaml compiler > > that can compile to .NET IL would greatly increase ocaml's visibility, not > > to mention solving some of the library and packaging issues that keep > > coming up with ocaml. I know about the F# project, but that implementati= > on > > appears to be only for a subset of ocaml, and is controlled by Microsoft. > > I'd be happier with something from the core ocaml team. Of course, MY > > motivation is that I'd like to be able to write nifty graphical apps in > > ocaml under Linux. After all, once you learn ocaml, C# is not really very > > tempting ;-) > > The thing is that this subset is FORCED by the inherent design of the > CLR/.NET bytecode virtual machine, which doesn't support stuff like > parameterized modules. Any attempt to port something like OCaml to > something like CLR/.NET will only result in its bastardization, and > thus the loss of many of its features/advantages. > That's interesting, considering that standard ML is one of the languages supposedly targeted by the common language runtime (by which I mean that the SML team was consulted on what features they would need in the intermediate language in order to support SML). Doesn't SML have parameterized modules? Mike ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners