rossb...@mpi-sws.org writes:
> "Sylvain Le Gall" :
>>
>> This is not about optimized compiler in this case but about data
>> representation. Even if you use an optimized compiler (which is not
>> really the case with ocamlopt), you won't change datastructure
>> representation to optimize.
>
> What
The 17th International Conference on
Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Edgar Friendly writes:
> On 05/04/2010 07:53 AM, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>> On 04-05-2010, AUGER Cédric wrote:
>>> type momentum = Moment of kinematic
>>>
>>> That is does the constructor introduce an overhead or not?
>>> As there is only one constructor, no overhead should be done in an
>>> opt
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> module M : sig
>type momentum
>val of_kin : kinematic -> momentum
>val to_kin : momentum -> kinematic
> end = struct
>type momentum = kinematic
>let of_kin x = x
>let to_kin x = x
> end
>
> Yes
hi
I'm waiting for the day that microsoft release f# under a "official"
open source license. It has been promised several times, but its still
only available under the "Microsoft Research Shared Source license
agreement" and
meanwhile I'm not sure if it ever really happens.
So I've stumbled over O
"Goswin von Brederlow" :
>
>>> This is not about optimized compiler in this case but about data
>>> representation. Even if you use an optimized compiler (which is not
>>> really the case with ocamlopt), you won't change datastructure
>>> representation to optimize.
>>
>> What do you mean? There is
On 05/05/2010 02:06 PM, ben kuin wrote:
I'm waiting for the day that microsoft release f# under a "official"
open source license. It has been promised several times, but its still
only available under the "Microsoft Research Shared Source license
agreement" and
meanwhile I'm not sure if it ever r
CONTENT MATH TRAINING CAMP
and
DOCTORAL PROGRAMME
at
Conferences on Intelligent Computer Mathematics (CICM 2010)
CNAM, Paris, France
6th-9th July
http:
rossb...@mpi-sws.org writes:
> "Goswin von Brederlow" :
>>
This is not about optimized compiler in this case but about data
representation. Even if you use an optimized compiler (which is not
really the case with ocamlopt), you won't change datastructure
representation to optim
Or use the real ocaml on a real OS (^_^)
--
Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate. Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.i
--- On Wed, 5/5/10, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> Or use the real ocaml on a real OS
> (^_^)
>
I do not understand UNIX bigotry.
Yes, Unix is technically superior to Windows. But Plan 9 is technically
superior to Unix. But I doubt Eray is running Plan 9.
More computers run Windows than all other OS
http://caml.inria.fr/download.en.html
Well, it is actually available on Windows. And mind you, there is some
popular windows software written in ocaml. We were taking a look at
haxe the other day. The F# makes use of the (pretty good designed)
.net CLR. Which isn't a bad thing at all, but it's not
> Or use the real ocaml on a real OS (^_^)
my vision is a unix centric clr based vm:
- no non-ecma parts
- maybe a complete different base class library (like OcamIL)
- the target is not to enable windows apps on unix, but the other way around
- the vm is crossplattform, the bytecode is compatible
Le 5 mai 10 à 21:16, Ed Keith a écrit :
--- On Wed, 5/5/10, Eray Ozkural wrote:
Or use the real ocaml on a real OS
(^_^)
I do not understand UNIX bigotry.
Yes, Unix is technically superior to Windows. But Plan 9 is
technically superior to Unix. But I doubt Eray is running Plan 9.
Mor
keith, a few thoughts, ... before I've worked with linux I was a
windows guy. I remember the day (forgot the context though) when I
installed the ocaml package on my dell/windows-xp/laptop (yuk) . Since
the workflow on windows is very gui centric, you can't help to get
very sensible how a particula
I think the main problem is the lack of cross platform gui that looks
good on windows.
LablTk: ok only for simple gui
LablGtk:fragile on linux, bad on windows
qt: I once tried to create bindings for a newer qt release ( >
4.2), I didn't finished it, but I think it would be doable. The big
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 1:36 AM, ben kuin wrote:
> I think the main problem is the lack of cross platform gui that looks
> good on windows.
>
> LablTk: ok only for simple gui
> LablGtk: fragile on linux, bad on windows
> qt: I once tried to create bindings for a newer qt release ( >
> 4.2),
17 matches
Mail list logo
