Hello, 2009/8/18 Richard Jones <r...@annexia.org>: > It's relatively low-level when you need it to be, and it wouldn't be > too much work to separate out the runtime and reimplement it on top of > baremetal.
I've done part of this in the past (KOS is not bare metal but a kernel nonetheless): http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2005/01/cf207671ce0efc6bf58f710b230e06e2.en.html > It would also be interesting to see if the supposed > massive overheads of garbage collection are in reality better than > bloating every structure with an additional reference count field. I share the same feeling. There were experiments of implementing kernel functionalities like TCP stack in ML-like languages, e.g. "A Structured TCP in Standard ML (1994)" (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.35.8383) or "A Network Protocol Stack in Standard ML" (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.11.8546) Yours, d. _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
