ben kuin <benk...@gmail.com> writes: > hi erik, > I highly appreciate your blog, so it hurts me a little but - I disagree: > >> The only evidence to support this is the widespead usage of >> Java and C#, but I think that is a language choice rather than >> a conscious decision to use a language that runs on a VM. >> >> People chose Java and C# because they are preferable to >> fundamentally unsafe langauges like C and C++. > > English is not my first language, maybe I misunderstand, but what > you're are saying here sound like a complete contradiction to me: > Like you say C and C++ are considered as 'unsafe' languages. But thats > because they offer features, that are not available when programming > for a vm. This has nothing to do with languages, it's a conscious > platform decision.
Who says they are not available in a vm? There is nothing stopping you from compiling C code to run on a vm. It will be just as unsafe and crash in the vm as it is on a real cpu. Similary ocaml can be run in a vm or native. Why would the quality be improved by running it in a vm? Both bytecode and native use the same source (unless you mean things like --unsafe). >>> What if ocamlopt would be dropped for a faster ocaml vm? >> >> Why? Even if the Ocaml was able to target a faster VM, there >> are still many people who would chose to generate native >> binaries. > > I'd call that a questionable decision. As far as I know, using native > binaries means to open a whole range of potentially uncorrectionable > problems with abi incomptabilities between libraries or with changes > of the underlying os. > > As far as I know when you go native you always have to take abi > incompatibility and therefore recompilation into account. For business > apps, that's a showstopper. Has the native ABI ever changed in ocaml native code? I somewhat doubt that. That is just the C ABI. The compiled module interface though changes with every compiler version and every source change it seems. So every time you update the compiler or change a module you need to recompile everything. But that is a problem of the specific ocaml implementation and in no way a general problem. And correct me if I'm wrong but don't you have to recompile bytecode just as well every time you update the compiler? >> Erik (who uses Ocaml compiled to native binaries for mission >> critical code) > > Would you mind to share some infos about your experiences, maybe on your blog? MfG Goswin _______________________________________________ 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