Xavier Clerc wrote:
> Jon Harrop a écrit :
> > I don't think this is heated at all. We were talking about "high
> > performance" languages and you cited a bunch of languages that get
> whipped
> > by Python on this benchmark:
> >
> >
> > http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/f-vs-ocaml-vs-has
Jon Harrop a écrit :
(...)
I don't think this is heated at all. We were talking about "high
performance" languages and you cited a bunch of languages that get whipped
by Python on this benchmark:
http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/f-vs-ocaml-vs-haskell-hash-table.
html
Acknowledged
Xavier Clerc wrote:
> Jon Harrop a écrit :
> > Xavier Clerc:
> >> Le 14 mai 2010 à 12:40, Jon Harrop a écrit :
> >> > Xavier Clerc wrote:
> >> >> Limiting myself to the JVM...
> >> >> Moreover, at least Scala and Bigloo deliver excellent
> performances.
> >> >
> >> > I have benchmarks where the JV
Jon Harrop a écrit :
Xavier Clerc:
Le 14 mai 2010 à 12:40, Jon Harrop a écrit :
> Xavier Clerc wrote:
>> Limiting myself to the JVM...
>> Moreover, at least Scala and Bigloo deliver excellent performances.
>
> I have benchmarks where the JVM is well over 10x slower than .NET. So
> I do not reg
Xavier Clerc:
> Le 14 mai 2010 à 12:40, Jon Harrop a écrit :
> > Xavier Clerc wrote:
> >> Limiting myself to the JVM...
> >> Moreover, at least Scala and Bigloo deliver excellent performances.
> >
> > I have benchmarks where the JVM is well over 10x slower than .NET. So
> > I do not regard any JVM-
Erik wrote:
>>> Jon Harrop wrote:
>>> > Not really. Windows supports a far wider variety of hardware than
>>> > Linux and
>
> Well, this does sound a little funny considering that Linux is free
> software and has been ported to almost every odd hardware platform,
> and how many platforms does Windo
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Jon Harrop
wrote:
> Erik wrote:
>> Jon Harrop wrote:
>> > Not really. Windows supports a far wider variety of hardware than
>> > Linux and
>>
>> Oh really?
>
> Yes, really.
Well, this does sound a little funny considering that Linux is free
software and has been p
Erik de Castro Lopo writes:
> ben kuin wrote:
>> If you really want to torture a developer, these is the best toolset
>> you get.
>
> You have to be kidding me. I personally think the Microsoft development
> tools are completely horrible.
That is what he said. That toolset is the best to *tortur
Jon Harrop writes:
> Erik wrote:
>> Jon Harrop wrote:
>> > Not really. Windows supports a far wider variety of hardware than
>> > Linux and
>>
>> Oh really?
>
> Yes, really.
>
>> I have a three machine here:
>>
>> a) A Dual PowerPC G5 Apple Mac.
>> b) A SUN ultra-sparc X1.
>> c) One of th
Jon Harrop writes:
> Goswin wrote:
>> Hardly any business today has an inhomogene environment. And if the
>> environment is homogene then the vm gives you 0 advantage. It just
>> costs you overhead to emulate.
>
> A Common Language Runtime (CLR) is an obvious counter example => the shared
> VM gi
Erik wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
> > Not really. Windows supports a far wider variety of hardware than
> > Linux and
>
> Oh really?
Yes, really.
> I have a three machine here:
>
> a) A Dual PowerPC G5 Apple Mac.
> b) A SUN ultra-sparc X1.
> c) One of the early Cobalt Qube machines with a M
> Microsoft was your saviour because Microsoft caused all your problems
> in the first place.
Ok, the topic here is personal and office computing. I mean cubical
drones who are not allowed to used right mouse button? Consultants and
their 20 MB powerpoints? Middle management assholes with the port
Jon Harrop wrote:
> Not really. Windows supports a far wider variety of hardware than Linux and
Oh really?
I have a three machine here:
a) A Dual PowerPC G5 Apple Mac.
b) A SUN ultra-sparc X1.
c) One of the early Cobalt Qube machines with a MIPS CPU.
All of these run Debian. Can windows
ben kuin wrote:
> > If yes it seems this has not been a big showstopper to Windows apps
>
> err what?? On what planet do you live? It must be a nice place :-)
I would say it hasn't been a big problem on Windows because people
are still using windows. Furthermore, how many of the programs that
Mi
ben kuin wrote:
> 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.
Yes. One can't really program in those languages without using
pointers and manual
Raoul Duke wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:59 AM, ben kuin wrote:
> > but that would be the big benefit of a clr like vm: It doesn't matter
> > how messed up, chaotic or just heterogen the environment is as long
> > as you can count on a regular execution of your portable bytecode.
>
> of cou
Goswin wrote:
> Hardly any business today has an inhomogene environment. And if the
> environment is homogene then the vm gives you 0 advantage. It just
> costs you overhead to emulate.
A Common Language Runtime (CLR) is an obvious counter example => the shared
VM gives you safe and high-level int
ben kuin 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.
>>
> If yes it seems this has not been a big showstopper to Windows apps
err what?? On what planet do you live? It must be a nice place :-)
COM components ( to encapsulate the abi )
DLL hell ( never heard of that? com registration)
STL ( taming the abi)
CORBA ( to talk between incompatible libraries
Le 15 mai 10 à 11:45, ben kuin a écrit :
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 na
--- On Sat, 5/15/10, ben kuin wrote:
> >> 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 f
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#
Erik de Castro Lopo writes:
> ben kuin wrote:
>
>> I assume it's save to say that most today (business) critical
>> applications have to be written in a vm supported language.
Hardly any business today has an inhomogene environment. And if the
environment is homogene then the vm gives you 0 adva
Ben Kuin wrote:
> technical:
> - in .NET everything is easy (from the surface): you have your source
> file (hello.cs) you take your compiler (cs.exe) and compile it to a
> msil bytecode file (hello.dll). You can run reflection tools to
> hello.dll or link it to a exe or generate back to source. T
ben kuin wrote:
> I assume it's save to say that most today (business) critical
> applications have to be written in a vm supported language.
Why do you assume that?
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 consc
> Please. You're not talking about the same thing. Ben talks about the
> benefits such a vm would have once it would be done, you talk about how hard
> it would be to do it.
Exactly, thanks.
I assume it's save to say that most today (business) critical
applications have to be written in a vm supp
> Please. You're not talking about the same thing. Ben talks about the
> benefits such a vm would have once it would be done, you talk about how hard
> it would be to do it.
i think several things are being intertwined here, i don't agree with
you evaluation of the discussion.
sincerely.
___
Le 14 mai 10 à 23:42, Raoul Duke a écrit :
-- Forwarded message --
From: Raoul Duke
Date: Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] about OcamIL
To: ben kuin
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:59 AM, ben kuin wrote:
but that would be the big benefit of a clr like vm
-- Forwarded message --
From: Raoul Duke
Date: Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] about OcamIL
To: ben kuin
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:59 AM, ben kuin wrote:
> but that would be the big benefit of a clr like vm: It doesn't matter
> how messed up,
> Isn't this precisely the aim of Jon's hlvm
> (www.ffconsultancy.com/ocaml/hlvm/)?
that's an interesting question, Here are a few thoughts:
technical:
- in .NET everything is easy (from the surface): you have your source
file (hello.cs) you take your compiler (cs.exe) and compile it to a
msil by
but that would be the big benefit of a clr like vm: It doesn't matter
how messed up, chaotic or just heterogen the environment is as long as
you can count on a regular execution of your portable bytecode.
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Raoul Duke wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:26 AM, ben ku
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:26 AM, ben kuin wrote:
> realworld. I think it's interesting that on the ms-windows platform
> .net is used for everything with great success:
> Compared to that I think the jvm is only succesful when it comes to
> 'backend services', which often play an important role in
Le 14 mai 10 à 18:26, ben kuin a écrit :
I think something like the clr would be a huge progress
first and foremost for the linux programmers. Maybe Ocaml could play
an important role of providing a slick api, because of its strength
when it comes to language implementation (compilers), so we w
> So your argument as such says nothing about JVM
jon-bot: yes it does, look at those numbers here: ...
goswin-bot: no it doesn't because: ... startup time ... hotspot ... server
...
jon-bot: moron
goswin-bot: liar
So far the typical java-shootout pattern.
Maybe another approach would be to compa
Jon Harrop writes:
> Xavier Clerc wrote:
>> Limiting myself to the JVM...
>> Moreover, at least Scala and Bigloo deliver excellent performances.
>
> I have benchmarks where the JVM is well over 10x slower than .NET. So I do
> not regard any JVM-based language as "high performance".
>
> Cheers,
>
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Jon Harrop wrote:
> From: Jon Harrop
> Subject: RE: [Caml-list] about OcamIL
> To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
> Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 6:40 AM
> Xavier Clerc wrote:
> > Limiting myself to the JVM...
> > Moreover, at least Scala and Bigloo deliv
Le 14 mai 2010 à 12:40, Jon Harrop a écrit :
> Xavier Clerc wrote:
>> Limiting myself to the JVM...
>> Moreover, at least Scala and Bigloo deliver excellent performances.
>
> I have benchmarks where the JVM is well over 10x slower than .NET. So I do
> not regard any JVM-based language as "high p
Le 14 mai 2010 à 12:58, Eray Ozkural a écrit :
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Jon Harrop
> wrote:
>> Xavier Clerc wrote:
>>> Limiting myself to the JVM...
>>> Moreover, at least Scala and Bigloo deliver excellent performances.
>>
>> I have benchmarks where the JVM is well over 10x slower th
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Jon Harrop
wrote:
> Xavier Clerc wrote:
>> Limiting myself to the JVM...
>> Moreover, at least Scala and Bigloo deliver excellent performances.
>
> I have benchmarks where the JVM is well over 10x slower than .NET. So I do
> not regard any JVM-based language as "hi
Xavier Clerc wrote:
> Limiting myself to the JVM...
> Moreover, at least Scala and Bigloo deliver excellent performances.
I have benchmarks where the JVM is well over 10x slower than .NET. So I do
not regard any JVM-based language as "high performance".
Cheers,
Jon.
Jon Harrop a écrit :
Ben Kuin wrote:
I've introduced the post with some license related concerns, maybe I
should take a step back and think about what I want:
1. - programming in a ML like language ( especially the caml family
since I really like those lightweigt type definitions and the pa
Ben Kuin wrote:
> > A little off topic, but how is Mono/Unix these days?
> >> Still leaks memory,
> you refer to your examinations?
> (http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/mono-22-still-leaks-
> memory.html?showComment=1233522107493#c7872630239059031867)
> where you say yes and the mono devs
Peng Zang wrote:
> It even has a native mode toplevel now that's
> suppose to be fast (anyone have any experience with this?).
You mean "ocamlnat"? The performance was great but it was buggy and I think
it never made it into mainline OCaml.
Cheers,
Jon.
_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ah, I guess I think of ocamlrun as just an interpreter. But you're right,
that's also a vm.
Peng
On Tuesday 11 May 2010 07:47:25 pm ben kuin wrote:
> > OCaml doesn't have a vm like the jvm.
>
> ocamlc compiles to bytecode
> ocamlrun interprets the
> OCaml doesn't have a vm like the jvm.
ocamlc compiles to bytecode
ocamlrun interprets the bytecode
bytecode interpreter == vm
hence ocaml has a vm
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Peng Zang wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Tuesday 11 May 2010 07:22:56 am ben kui
> 1. - programming in a ML like language ( especially the caml family
> since I really like those lightweigt type definitions and the pattern
> matching that can be applied on those)
>
> 2. - high performance runtime, preferably a jit based vm, no problems with TCO
>
> 3. - a true open source licen
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Peng Zang wrote:
> And of course as you pointed out you can always compile OCaml code to native
> machine code which has always had good performance.
i was under the impression the main complaint is lack of top-notch
support for concurrency?
_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 11 May 2010 07:22:56 am ben kuin wrote:
> I think this 3 point are REASONABLE but the combination of those 3
> items is INEXISTENT.
>
> Ocaml: the vm is not very fast (no jit AFAIK)
>
>
> So I guess the best thing would be to use good ol Oc
> A little off topic, but how is Mono/Unix these days?
>> Still leaks memory,
you refer to your examinations?
(http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/mono-22-still-leaks-memory.html?showComment=1233522107493#c7872630239059031867)
where you say yes and the mono devs are say no to memory leaking?
> A little off topic, but how is Mono/Unix these days? Last I checked
> (>2 years ago) it implemented the basic libraries and runtimes but had
terrible
> performance. Is it now on par with Windows?
Still leaks memory, has broken TCO and runs like a dog. Mono has also fallen
even farther behind n
> On Thursday 06 May 2010 06:43:21 am Dmitry Bely wrote:
>> Ironically it's also not entirely true. F# works well under Mono/Unix.
>>
> A little off topic, but how is Mono/Unix these days? Last I checked (>2 years
> ago) it implemented the basic libraries and runtimes but had terrible
> performanc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 06 May 2010 06:43:21 am Dmitry Bely wrote:
> Ironically it's also not entirely true. F# works well under Mono/Unix.
>
> - Dmitry Bely
>
A little off topic, but how is Mono/Unix these days? Last I checked (>2 years
ago) it implemented th
lablGTK2 on linux is not fragile! Its robust, well designed, and
produces nice guis!
(at least on debian. props to the packagers and developers, if you're
listening)
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:36 PM, ben kuin wrote:
> I think the main problem is the lack of cross platform gui that looks
> good on
--- On Wed, 5/5/10, ben kuin wrote:
> From: ben kuin
> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] about OcamIL
> To: "Ed Keith" , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
> Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 6:18 PM
> keith, a few thoughts, ... before
> I've worked with linux I was a
> windows
> 1. [...] it would still require some time to rewrite a few parts.
Release early, release often. Maybe you put it under your name on
sourceforge, if you are afraid to put potentially non-buildable code
under the flags of lexifi.
> 2. Similarly, we rely on our "extended standard library" (a colle
> for instance abstracting over
> x11/win32(horrors!) windowing systems first
you're an optimist :-)
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> 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 wind
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Ed Keith wrote:
> It bothers me that the Ocaml community seems to consider Windows developers
> as second class citizens. Until this changes
> Ocaml will never be a main stream language.
I think it's not really that bad. Ocaml developers support Windows as
a fir
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),
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
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
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
> 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
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
--- 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
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 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
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
67 matches
Mail list logo
