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 to C
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2004-05-10 (19:10)
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@c...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml to C
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 11:50:00AM +0300, Jere Sanisalo wrote:
> On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 04:37:16PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> >However, if you are going to do that, why not just compile the code to
> >native code with ocamlopt and not worry about the C piece?
> Because ocaml compilers/runtimes do not exist for every platform (say,
> consoles). And because compiling to C code could allow you to write
> independent libraries for others to use. It would be nice to release
> libraries that do a ton of stuff, usable for C/C++ coders, that were written
> easily with ocaml. And also some managers seem to trust projects that are
> "pure C/C++" much more than projects that use a variable amount of
> languages.

IMHO, a better approach than generating C output of questionable
usefulness would be to extend ocamlopt to:

1. Support those platforms it doesn't yet;
2. Support output to .o/.a/.so/.dll files to directly generate
   C-style shared libraries.

I still don't see the utility of the massive undertaking that would be
necessary to actually generate full C code from OCaml.  I doubt that
anyone would be able to maintain that C code directly in any meaningful
way, which pretty much negates any manager-related benefit.

-- John

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