Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] ocaml killer
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2004-01-29 (04:17)
From: Brian Hurt <bhurt@s...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml killer
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Martin Berger wrote:

> > Java/the JVM is not a systems-programming language.  Period.  Oh, and
> > I'll defend that against all comers.  Difference is, though, if you
> > wanna attack, I'll expect real examples, not the academic crap that
> > most programming language theorists throw around.
> i'll have to defend my profession here: which working programming
> language theorist proposes java as a "systems-programming language"?
> most of them are busy researching concurrency or pointer arithmetic
> these days.

Supposedly Sun has an OS written in Java.  I wouldn't touch it with a ten 
foot cattle prod, myself.  I'd rather use Pascal to write an OS (I'd shoot 
myself first in either case, it'd be less painfull).

> but i guess it depends what you mean by that "systems-programming
> language". rather than attempting a definition (it's late here), i'll
> point to C/C++ or Cyclone as examples.

As a day-job systems programmers, throw C++ out of that group.  Systems 
programming (device drivers, OSs, BIOSs, etc- things that beat directly on 
hardware) tends to be either C or assembly.

See previous rant.

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
                                - Gene Spafford 

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: