On Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 02:05:16 +1000, James Gray wrote: >On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:36, Benno wrote: >> On Thu Sep 29, 2005 at 19:59:01 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: >> >O Plameras wrote: >> > >> >For just about everything you can do with a pointer in C there is >> >a better, easier, less error prone way to do the same thing in >> >O'caml and write less lines of code to do it. The one exception >> >I can thing of is writing devices drivers and operating systems >> >where you need to direct access to harware. >> >> Ok, you really want to make me learn O'Caml, and augment it so that >> is can write device drivers, and access hardware directly, because >> C is a totally inadequate language for writing device drivers. > >I think you got Eric's logic arse-about. He was say O'caml is good for >almost anything EXCEPT writing device drivers. Not the other way around.
I know, but I don't agree with him. If the language is good, there is no reason why it *shouldn't* be used for device driver programming. Device drivers are, in general, buggy pieces of crap, so having a higher level language to program them in would be a *really* good thing. I've written bindings to allow you to program drivers in python before, unfortunately the result wastoo slow :(. So a higher level compiled language like O'Caml might be kind of cool. No sarcasm intended. Benno -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
